Fighting the Last War
All this anti-capitalism stuff reminds me of a post I think I've linked to before, in which Matthew Yglesias considers the merits of Hayek et al. This passage stands out:
The thing about Hayek that's always worth keeping in mind was that things were quite different in his day. In particular, lots and lots of people thought that the Great Depression had totally discredited capitalism...
This war is over, though, which is also why I think the economic calculation problem is overblown. It's a good way to understand why prices are almost certainly necessary, but it tells us little about particular markets. In other words, like the term "anti-capitalist," it's really a relic of the last war. Socialism will never really go the way of "crossing the T," but it's not on the agenda in the US. The crucial thing today is to deepen our understanding of particular markets, such as healthcare, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. These are markets in which laissez faire does not work, but statism probably doesn't work either. It's a new war, and it's time to let the old battles sink into history.
The thing about Hayek that's always worth keeping in mind was that things were quite different in his day. In particular, lots and lots of people thought that the Great Depression had totally discredited capitalism...
This war is over, though, which is also why I think the economic calculation problem is overblown. It's a good way to understand why prices are almost certainly necessary, but it tells us little about particular markets. In other words, like the term "anti-capitalist," it's really a relic of the last war. Socialism will never really go the way of "crossing the T," but it's not on the agenda in the US. The crucial thing today is to deepen our understanding of particular markets, such as healthcare, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. These are markets in which laissez faire does not work, but statism probably doesn't work either. It's a new war, and it's time to let the old battles sink into history.
4 Comments:
I think this is right as far as Hayek is concerned, and the economic calculation problem doesn't answer (or completely answer) many contemporary policy questions (to be fair to my post you're referring to, I think I was applying the economic calculation problem in the proper context of prices versus command as a means of resource allocation).
On the other hand, I'm not sure your right in declaring that talk of "anti-capitalists" is totally obsolete. I'm no expert here, but it's my impression that the "anti-globalization" people are also (largely?) anti-capitalist, even (I think) in the sense of preferring socialist planning in areas you would treat as solved problems. Are these people important? It's not terribly clear. But there was a period not long ago (before 9/11) when the battle between capitalist globalization and the people wearing black and smashing Starbucks windows was (apparently) seen as an era-defining struggle.
Yes, the WTO protests. As I noted in my response to his previous post, James focuses exclusively on the "anti-capitalists" who are essentially capitalists with reasonable arguments that deviate from orthodoxy, while completely ignoring the crazies: anti-globalization protesters, left-wing "progressive" groups, radical environmentalists, and other economically illiterate groups who wield not insignificant power in the public arena.
Right, the economic calculation problem is still correct, but I think it's not particularly important. So while the economic calculation problem would make it difficult for judges to allocate resources, I think most of them simply accept market superiority without considering its underpinnings. Whatever work the economic calculation problem would do has been done.
The Seattle protestors were by no means politically powerful. You don't shout down a debate you're winning. Furthermore, I don't think they presented a coherent argument against free trade. At most they forced re-appraisal of the "Washington consensus," which was overdue anyway. Most protectionism is not ideological, it is interest-group politics.
As I said, socialism will always be with us. In the US, though, the revolution is over. Condolences, the bums lost. The important thing to recognize is that we're still making lots of bad policy within our capitalist utopia. If you spend all your time fretting about socialism, you won't pay enough attention to the relevant debates. In fact, you'll be committing the cardinal economic sin: failing to think at the margin.
WWW0427
new england patriots jerseys
skechers outlet
air huarache
true religion outlet
kate spade outlet online
polo ralph lauren
michael kors outlet online
49ers jersey
coach factory outlet
fitflops sale
Post a Comment
<< Home