"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." -- F. A. Hayek
I had a chat with a coworker a couple evenings ago. I had suspected he was rather lefty in his ideology, but hadn't considered the possibility that he was actually socialist.
He was.
The conversation was amiable nonetheless, and I came away from it knowing I'd given him some things to think about. I also gave myself something to think about. In response to one of his more progressive-minded statements, I replied, "One of the biggest problems I have with Marxism and with liberalism in general is the notion that we can design society. We can't. It evolves organically."
This is nothing new; I've said as much on many occasions. But something else occurred to me, which I added (and I paraphrase): "I guess the problem is that we take the American Experiment to be more than it is supposed to be. The Founders attempted to design a government, not a society. Somehow we've gotten it into our heads that we have arbitrary design control over society, and we don't."
I thought then about something Jon Stewart had said, years ago when I was still an avid watcher of the Daily Show. He had a conservative Republican as a guest (Mike Huckabee, I think). As the conversation wound down, Jon appeared to somewhat agree with something the guest said, qualifying it with "but we have to decide whether we want to be the kind of society that takes care of its own."
Stewart was committing the same fallacy I've busted many chops for since then, conflating "society" with "government." We can be a society that takes care of its own without government forcing us to do so.
Am I right about the origins of the progressive design sensibility? Do progressives assume that the Constitution, rather than serving as a means of limiting federal government growth and power, serves as a model for how we can direct society's evolution?
Exposing the consequences--intended and unintended--of statism and social engineering.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Friday, January 13, 2017
Hail to the Fief
Feeling cuspy, but with reservations about oligarchy...
We're nearing inauguration. And I'm of two minds about it.
Back when Obama first landed the office, I was disappointed, but not overly concerned. I'd weathered the Clinton years without too much discomfort, other than the black eye I felt he gave the office via that blue dress. Of course, I was much less politically aware back then, and much less economically literate. By the time Obama took office, those things had changed, as well as my understanding of human nature and of society, which now underpin my literacy in politics and economics.
I posted a halfway-optimistic welcome to Obama on what was then my go-to social network platform (MySpace), letting everyone know I was willing to support the president at least to start with. But my support lasted only about a day into his run. The first time I heard him stating that "only government" could get us out of the current economic situation, I began worrying about Rooseveltian-level interventions, about Carter-esque muddling about.
As it happened, Obama didn't mess things up as badly as those two did. He wasn't extremely interventionist. He did impose tariffs on imports, and that appears to have saved about a thousand American jobs. (Contrast that with Reagan's tariffs, which saved 44,000 jobs.) But both sets of tariffs increased consumer prices, so as always, there was a tradeoff. If saving jobs is what you're after, for legacy purposes, then maybe the tradeoff is worthwhile. No true Keynesian would ever regard inflation as something to be avoided in the pursuit of employment, after all.
But he also didn't improve matters much. A paltry thousand jobs isn't much to cheer about, especially when economic growth hovers at no better than 3% for the entirety of your term. The slowest post-Depression recovery in history is not much of a legacy.
Nor is his foreign policy. Syria is a political and humanitarian disaster (400,000 lives lost, plus an ongoing refugee crisis that has spread the violence from Syria well into Europe), and a stronger hand from the start could have at least mitigated that, and prevented the ever-growing emboldenment of Vladimir Putin. I won't play what-if with the scenarios there, because I don't pretend to have all the answers. I just know it could have been handled much better.
Obama supporters still rave about his "class," the "scandal-free" nature of his administration, and how "well-loved" he is. I suppose "class" is in the eye of the beholder. As for "scandal-free," these people clearly forget the revelations of Snowden, the persecution of political groups by the IRS, and the many, many falsehoods he spouted over two terms. ("Not his fault!" scream his supporters about the IRS thing, and "fake scandal!" they yell about everything else. These are the same supporters, mind you, who bellowed "The buck stops here!" about everything they disliked happening under Bush' watch.)
As for "well-loved," that, too, is fantasy. Obama's overall average approval rating, for 8 years, is 48%. That's the lowest rating among the last 5 presidents. He leaves office less well-loved than Bush was.
I didn't vote for Trump. I voted closer to a straight Republican ticket this time around than I ever have; Trump was the only Republican on the ballot I didn't vote for. But I might as well have, because this is Texas, and he was going to win the electoral vote here anyway.
This wasn't always the case. These days, I will almost never vote for a Democrat in a national race, and infrequently at a local level. But as recently as 2000, I was voting for fairly liberal candidates. (Ralph Nader, most notably. I wouldn't tilt that far left these days, but it wasn't so much his policy as his honesty that I was voting for back then.) Progressivism has to be resisted. Liberty has to be upheld. The market has to be freed. Those three principles guide my vote for the most part, but I also have to factor in honesty and integrity, and that's, in my opinion, where Trump fell short. (Smug Democrats will mutter "I told you so" under their breath at this point, ignoring the degree to which the Obamas also fell short in this regard.)
My vote for Johnson wasn't going to swing the issue either way, though, so it amounts to nothing more than a protest vote against the two-party system...same as my 2000 ballot did.
But even so, I'm glad Trump won. Even if the ongoing Russia scandal boils over and he becomes impeached his first week in office, he still kept Hillary out of the White House. More than that, he helped usher in the downfall of the Democrats nationwide. If he can in any way claim credit for that wave of result, then he deserves all my kudos. Every single one.
But although I regard the Democratic Party as a detestably corrupt and evil organization, the plain fact of the matter is that, as individuals, the average Republican is about as corrupt and inept as most Democrats. It's a problem we're stuck with for as long as politics, and the two-party system, survive.
My problem with Trump goes beyond his truthiness issues. I see him almost as a Trojan Democrat. He's evidently a big-government progressive who, like most Democrats, has no idea what government can and cannot do, nor what it should and should not try. While most liberals are fretting about his follow-through on all his campaign promises, I know that most of them are well beyond his purview as president. But liberals have never understood the limits on federal power, nor the separation of powers, so I just let them keep on fretting. Builds character.
As I've pointed out previously, his claims about "fixing the economy" are no better than Obama's if he takes an interventionist stance. The best thing he can do for the economy is nothing. Stand back and let it recover. Demonstrate the efficacy of laissez-faire for this generation (a generation born far too late to have witnessed the last time it was properly employed, during the Depression of 1920).
(And LOL at the fact that Facebook's spellchecker doesn't like the term "laissez-faire.")
Almost every economic measure a president can take will do more harm than good. But there is something that Trump can do, and in fact is already doing. He just needs to keep doing it.
You see, the main reason the Obama Recovery was so slow was the fact that Obama was so shitty at building confidence among investors. It's not public sector spending that grows the economy. It's investment. And investment relies, utterly, on confidence in the future. Without the expectation of return on investment, investment doesn't go forward. And since expanding business, and hiring labor, are both forms of investment, those don't go forward either.
The best way to inhibit confidence in the future is to proclaim omnibus legislation (such as the Affordable Care Act), to argue in favor of raising taxes, and to otherwise increase the regulatory burden on the market. The best way to build confidence is to reverse all of these trends.
Trump may yet prove to be another Obama. "Orange is the new black," and all that. But so far, he seems to be better at encouraging confidence than Obama ever was. Witness Ford's abandoning of its plans to open a plant in Mexico, and to retain 700 American jobs. The CEO has cited Trump in his statement about improved investor confidence.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. I think the Trump administration will be a hot mess, but I also think that with the Republicans running the show from the federal down through the state level, this is their time to shine. This is their opportunity to thoroughly repudiate FDR, Carter, and Keynes, and to show us a world which Mises, Hayek, and Friedman tried to usher in...the world that Sowell and Williams have been evangelizing on their behalf, the world that the Founders wanted right from the start.
Guys, don't fuck this up.
George Will: Obama was indeed transformational, unfortunately
George Will: Will the Republican Party learn the wrong lessons from its election victory?
USA Today: Ford cancels Mexico plant
We're nearing inauguration. And I'm of two minds about it.
Back when Obama first landed the office, I was disappointed, but not overly concerned. I'd weathered the Clinton years without too much discomfort, other than the black eye I felt he gave the office via that blue dress. Of course, I was much less politically aware back then, and much less economically literate. By the time Obama took office, those things had changed, as well as my understanding of human nature and of society, which now underpin my literacy in politics and economics.
I posted a halfway-optimistic welcome to Obama on what was then my go-to social network platform (MySpace), letting everyone know I was willing to support the president at least to start with. But my support lasted only about a day into his run. The first time I heard him stating that "only government" could get us out of the current economic situation, I began worrying about Rooseveltian-level interventions, about Carter-esque muddling about.
As it happened, Obama didn't mess things up as badly as those two did. He wasn't extremely interventionist. He did impose tariffs on imports, and that appears to have saved about a thousand American jobs. (Contrast that with Reagan's tariffs, which saved 44,000 jobs.) But both sets of tariffs increased consumer prices, so as always, there was a tradeoff. If saving jobs is what you're after, for legacy purposes, then maybe the tradeoff is worthwhile. No true Keynesian would ever regard inflation as something to be avoided in the pursuit of employment, after all.
But he also didn't improve matters much. A paltry thousand jobs isn't much to cheer about, especially when economic growth hovers at no better than 3% for the entirety of your term. The slowest post-Depression recovery in history is not much of a legacy.
Nor is his foreign policy. Syria is a political and humanitarian disaster (400,000 lives lost, plus an ongoing refugee crisis that has spread the violence from Syria well into Europe), and a stronger hand from the start could have at least mitigated that, and prevented the ever-growing emboldenment of Vladimir Putin. I won't play what-if with the scenarios there, because I don't pretend to have all the answers. I just know it could have been handled much better.
Obama supporters still rave about his "class," the "scandal-free" nature of his administration, and how "well-loved" he is. I suppose "class" is in the eye of the beholder. As for "scandal-free," these people clearly forget the revelations of Snowden, the persecution of political groups by the IRS, and the many, many falsehoods he spouted over two terms. ("Not his fault!" scream his supporters about the IRS thing, and "fake scandal!" they yell about everything else. These are the same supporters, mind you, who bellowed "The buck stops here!" about everything they disliked happening under Bush' watch.)
As for "well-loved," that, too, is fantasy. Obama's overall average approval rating, for 8 years, is 48%. That's the lowest rating among the last 5 presidents. He leaves office less well-loved than Bush was.
I didn't vote for Trump. I voted closer to a straight Republican ticket this time around than I ever have; Trump was the only Republican on the ballot I didn't vote for. But I might as well have, because this is Texas, and he was going to win the electoral vote here anyway.
This wasn't always the case. These days, I will almost never vote for a Democrat in a national race, and infrequently at a local level. But as recently as 2000, I was voting for fairly liberal candidates. (Ralph Nader, most notably. I wouldn't tilt that far left these days, but it wasn't so much his policy as his honesty that I was voting for back then.) Progressivism has to be resisted. Liberty has to be upheld. The market has to be freed. Those three principles guide my vote for the most part, but I also have to factor in honesty and integrity, and that's, in my opinion, where Trump fell short. (Smug Democrats will mutter "I told you so" under their breath at this point, ignoring the degree to which the Obamas also fell short in this regard.)
My vote for Johnson wasn't going to swing the issue either way, though, so it amounts to nothing more than a protest vote against the two-party system...same as my 2000 ballot did.
But even so, I'm glad Trump won. Even if the ongoing Russia scandal boils over and he becomes impeached his first week in office, he still kept Hillary out of the White House. More than that, he helped usher in the downfall of the Democrats nationwide. If he can in any way claim credit for that wave of result, then he deserves all my kudos. Every single one.
But although I regard the Democratic Party as a detestably corrupt and evil organization, the plain fact of the matter is that, as individuals, the average Republican is about as corrupt and inept as most Democrats. It's a problem we're stuck with for as long as politics, and the two-party system, survive.
My problem with Trump goes beyond his truthiness issues. I see him almost as a Trojan Democrat. He's evidently a big-government progressive who, like most Democrats, has no idea what government can and cannot do, nor what it should and should not try. While most liberals are fretting about his follow-through on all his campaign promises, I know that most of them are well beyond his purview as president. But liberals have never understood the limits on federal power, nor the separation of powers, so I just let them keep on fretting. Builds character.
As I've pointed out previously, his claims about "fixing the economy" are no better than Obama's if he takes an interventionist stance. The best thing he can do for the economy is nothing. Stand back and let it recover. Demonstrate the efficacy of laissez-faire for this generation (a generation born far too late to have witnessed the last time it was properly employed, during the Depression of 1920).
(And LOL at the fact that Facebook's spellchecker doesn't like the term "laissez-faire.")
Almost every economic measure a president can take will do more harm than good. But there is something that Trump can do, and in fact is already doing. He just needs to keep doing it.
You see, the main reason the Obama Recovery was so slow was the fact that Obama was so shitty at building confidence among investors. It's not public sector spending that grows the economy. It's investment. And investment relies, utterly, on confidence in the future. Without the expectation of return on investment, investment doesn't go forward. And since expanding business, and hiring labor, are both forms of investment, those don't go forward either.
The best way to inhibit confidence in the future is to proclaim omnibus legislation (such as the Affordable Care Act), to argue in favor of raising taxes, and to otherwise increase the regulatory burden on the market. The best way to build confidence is to reverse all of these trends.
Trump may yet prove to be another Obama. "Orange is the new black," and all that. But so far, he seems to be better at encouraging confidence than Obama ever was. Witness Ford's abandoning of its plans to open a plant in Mexico, and to retain 700 American jobs. The CEO has cited Trump in his statement about improved investor confidence.
So I'm cautiously optimistic. I think the Trump administration will be a hot mess, but I also think that with the Republicans running the show from the federal down through the state level, this is their time to shine. This is their opportunity to thoroughly repudiate FDR, Carter, and Keynes, and to show us a world which Mises, Hayek, and Friedman tried to usher in...the world that Sowell and Williams have been evangelizing on their behalf, the world that the Founders wanted right from the start.
Guys, don't fuck this up.
George Will: Obama was indeed transformational, unfortunately
George Will: Will the Republican Party learn the wrong lessons from its election victory?
USA Today: Ford cancels Mexico plant