Merry Christmas

Welcome friends!

Well, it’s the holiday season once again here in the US so I’d like to take a moment to wish everyone a merry Christmas.  I suppose some people may think it’s a little strange for an atheist to be wishing people a merry Christmas.  Not sensible people, of course, I mean people like whoever wrote the article I saw in the paper the other day entitled Do Atheists Celebrate Christmas?  Yeah buddy, I don’t mean to shock you or anything, but many atheists celebrate Christmas.  Well, OK, I suppose it might be worthwhile to say a few words about that.  

First of all, I would suggest that many of the traditions that we associate with Christmas here in the US are not particularly Christian...  Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Occupy My Blog

Welcome friends!

I read a rather interesting account of the Occupy Wall Street movement in a recent issue of the New Yorker magazine the other day, so I thought I might do a post on that.  However, I must admit that what stood out to me as particularly interesting was not the main gist of the story but some of the ancillary issues it raised in my mind about the anarchist fringe element that may or may not be involved.  Before I turn to that though, let me just say that in general I wholeheartedly support Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements around the world.  I mean, what’s not to like?  I certainly think it’s a healthy counterweight to the noxious confluence of big money and politics that one usually finds, particularly (but not uniquely) on the conservative side of the aisle.  And I think their policy suggestions so far sound eminently reasonable and practical such as, for example, a small tax on certain investment transactions.  I mean, if you think that type of thing is radical you should check out what they’ve been up to recently on the other side.

Anyway, let’s move on to this whole issue of the anarchist fringe element... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Bully for Michigan

Welcome friends!

I suppose you’ve been reading the newspaper stories about the problem of bullying in schools in this country.  Apparently it’s quite the epidemic.  But did you catch the story about the US state of Michigan (or more accurately Republicans in Michigan) passing a law that actually protects religious bullies along with miscellaneous other bullies as well?  Yes, that’s right.  The story is almost too incredible to believe but apparently the good people of Michigan have passed a law against bullying in schools unless the bullying is based on a “sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”  Now since I’m sure most serious and systematic bullying has some basis in a religious belief or some cockeyed moral conviction about the relative worth of the bully and bullied the bottom line is that this law, ostensibly an anti-bullying law, is more properly considered a pro-bullying law.

To add insult to injury Michiganians named their pro-bullying law Matt’s Safe School Law in reference to some kid named Matt Epling, who apparently committed suicide at age fourteen after anti-gay bullying at his school... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Conservatism and Fascism

Welcome friends!

I was watching some old WWII documentaries on TV the other day and it got me thinking about the close relationship between conservatism and fascism, so I thought I might do a post on that today.

Now for me understanding fascism requires above all that one appreciate the fundamental concern of economic conservatives probably ever since the advent of democratic government, which is that democratic government represents a form of social and political power that is not based on wealth and economic power generated through one’s success in the market place (or one’s ancestors’ success, or other ostensibly laudable behaviors and attributes such as winning the lottery, gambling on the stock market with other people’s money, or running a successful drug cartel) but on an entirely distinct egalitarian ethical concept of one man one vote.  This concept is at odds with the conservative view of the relative worth and importance of different people.  So the primary fear of conservatives is, and has always been, that under the right conditions relatively economically unsuccessful and powerless people who naturally do not deserve much consideration in their view might use their combined democratic political power to enact policies that would tend to improve their lot but possibly negatively affect the lot of those who are currently making out very well under the existing system, whatever that might happen to be.  (That’s right, I’m talking about the dreaded specter of redistribution, broadly conceived, or “class warfare” as US conservatives tend to call it.)  Thus, economic conservatives are always fundamentally at war with democratic government typically spend a great deal of time and effort trying to impress upon others the ineptness, corruption, and all around uselessness of democratic government (belied of course by their great interest in that form of government when it can be used to their own advantage).

The conventional solution to this thorny issue for conservatives of how to remove the threat posed by democratic political systems has traditionally been to simply apply their economic power to democratic politics thereby heading off any possibility government action might be used to further the interests of anyone other than themselves.  This usually represents little difficulty because as everyone knows, especially every American, money talks.  This solution works pretty well as long as things go well enough that the common man and woman manages to keep life and limb together.  Vested business interests and wealthy individuals essentially buy off politicians, or influence politicians via political contributions, or just spend money financing and marketing suitable political parties, think tanks, pundits, radio talk show hosts, newspapers, etc.  They generally manage to convince the man and woman in the street that policies that benefit the economic elite benefit everyone else as well either by the old trickle down theory or by the new twist that the elite generate jobs, etc., while policies that benefit anyone else are a sure recipe for disaster.  The average person tends to go along with this because he or she is typically struggling to make a living and has little time to devote to politics anyway.

Unfortunately for conservatives this cozy arrangement tends to break down when serious economic troubles come along, which they do on a regular basis in insufficiently regulated free market economic systems.  And this is exactly what happened in the early part of the twentieth century just prior to the advent of fascism.  Yes, we — and by we I mean the world — had a little problem: the Great Depression, to be exact.  And when people fall on tough times and are unemployed and their kids are going hungry, guess what?  They start getting a little more interested in things like economic and social policy, and they start looking at government as a potential solution to their problems.  This led to the terrifying prospect for conservatives that the economic elites of the world might lose their grip on their respective political systems.

Now when conservatives become concerned they can no longer contain democratic government and use it to further their own interests they have two routes they can take.  First, they can just get rid of the democratic bit and support a government they can rely upon to support their interests.  Second, they can keep the democratic bit but try to put as many constraints as they can on the government being used for anything other than maintaining the status quo.  The first option is, of course, fascism.  Big government, conservative style.  Now when you think about it, the political and ethical philosophy of fascism is actually a lot closer to the social philosophy associated with free market capitalism than is the egalitarian philosophy that underlies democratic political theory.  After all, in the same way unregulated capitalism leads economic power to become ever more concentrated in the hands of a relatively few people (usually the most materialistic, ambitious, egotistical, and ruthless), fascism leads to political power to become ever more concentrated in the hands of a relatively few people (of a basically similar temperament) or even of one person.  In addition to the titans of industry who ostensibly naturally wield disproportionate economic power one has titans of politics who naturally wield disproportionate political power.  And, indeed, under fascism, the connection between the leaders of private industry and government were historically very close indeed.

Unfortunately for conservatives fascism turned out to be something of a bust.  It did apparently have some early successes, particularly in the economic realm.  However, it rather quickly and spectacularly succumbed to its own distinctive pathologies including most notably the fact that the most effective way to get the common man re-employed and occupied in difficult economic conditions while preserving the economic status quo turned out to involve quite a bit of warfare, which eventually became unmanageable.  And then of course you had the problem that with no democratic checks and balances in place the system tended to fly off the rails in other ways, such as the suppression (well, OK, let’s just say wholesale murder) of minorities.

With fascism thoroughly discredited conservatives were left with only the second option to confront the threat posed by democratic government, which was to begrudgingly accept democratic government but try to minimize or constrain government action (that is, government action that does not support the status quo or existing interests) any way they can.  Now conservatives in the US have been laying the framework to do just this for years.  Their basic approach has been to try to convince the working man and woman any government action on his or her behalf would not only be futile but counterproductive and only policies that play to the status quo and strengthen the position of the economic elite can possibly improve the welfare of other people.  And I must say they have been enormously successful at it; so much so conservatives have pretty much had a lock on the government of the US for many years now.  As a result, the gap that exists between the market power of the economic elite and that of everyone else has grown to proportions never before seen in this country, while the economic welfare of the middle and lower classes has continued the long, sad decline it has been on for years.  However, as one might expect, conservative anti-government zeal has not only made a few people incredibly wealthy but it has re-introduced levels of instability, economic deprivation, and unemployment we haven’t seen for years.  And, yes, some of the commoners are once again starting to get a bit restless.  One has the idea some conservatives are starting to wonder how long they can keep it up.  So it should come as no surprise to anyone they are trying ever more drastic means to rein in the ability of democratic government to take any type of action to change anything in any way that would not be in their favor, including such stratagems as the arch-conservative Tea Party’s attempt to single handedly ruin the credit of the US government with a manufactured debt default, the Republican Party’s attempt to bankrupt the US government with costly wars combined with irresponsible, unproductive, and inequitable tax cuts, and more of the same with tax cuts coupled with balanced budget amendments.  So will conservatives finally get their way and manage to drown our democratic government (or really the progressive potential of our democratic government) in a bathtub, to paraphrase one of the Tea Party’s puppet masters?  Only time will tell.

Uganda Be Kidding Me

Welcome friends!

I think I’d like to go back a bit this time and discuss a story that came out of Uganda a couple of years ago.  (Yeah, I know, it’s Christmas in July!  But it’s not as though the same thing couldn’t happen today.  Anyway, as I must have mentioned before, this site is not really about breaking news; it’s about social trends and currents that have been around for years and will probably be around for years to come.)  You can watch a documentary video of the story I’m talking about on You Tube under the title Missionaries of Hate, which I’m pretty sure I saw on TV in 2010 under the title Illegal to Be Gay.  It’s really a rather eye opening window on the international social conservative mind.

The basic story is that some politicians in Uganda recently put forward a bill calling for life imprisonment or in some cases death for gay people...  Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Liberals and Econ 101 Part II

Welcome friends!

I think I’d like to revisit one of my pet peeves today, which is this whole issue of conservative free market ideology, neoclassical economic theory, utility, and Pareto optimality.  I know I’ve discussed the issue before (Liberals and Econ 101, Nov 2010, and my two intro pieces as well), but I seem to be continually bombarded by conservatives insisting their free market ideology shows they have a better grasp of economics than their rivals, which I don’t believe to be the case and which I actually find a little irritating.  So maybe it’s time for another go.  Now I realize this type of post may be a little boring for many, especially those who skipped or slept through Econ 101 or who attended but thought it was all a big crock, so I promise I won’t bring it up again ... soon.

OK, now I’ve discussed before that economic theory uses a fairly distinctive definition of utility, the most salient point of which is that it does not allow one to make comparisons of utility between different people (i.e., “interpersonal utility comparisons”).  This means economic theory really has nothing to say about the desirability of policies that have winners and losers, that is, that make at least one person better off and one person worse off.  (Well, OK, I suppose there are situations in which the winners could compensate the losers, in which case you wouldn’t really have winners and losers because everyone would come out ahead — unless relative outcomes also matter to people, which they probably do, in which case you would still have winners and losers, but never mind.  To simplify the discussion, let’s just talk about situations that generate true winners and losers, that is, situations in which the winners either cannot or will not compensate the losers.)

Now I doubt anyone would dispute that there are, in fact, winners and losers (in a strictly economic sense) in any more-or-less free market economy such as that of the US.  Under our current arrangements some people become billionaires and some people live under a bridge.  There is no reason to suppose making our arrangements conform even more closely to some abstract ideal of the free market would alter that fact.  This raises the question of how conservatives have apparently come to believe economic theory supports the desirability of free market policies, with their associated pattern of winners and losers, when it really has nothing to say about the moral standing of the resulting pattern of winners and losers, that is, about the distribution of economic resources within such a system.  I mean, let’s face it, to the extent some people have problems with free market systems, it’s usually that exact issue they’re thinking about: the distribution of the output.

Well, the short answer is you can’t actually get to where conservatives want to go with just economic theory.  You need to add some additional ethical content in some way.  So where can you get with just economic theory?  Well, economic theory establishes that under certain conditions a “perfectly competitive” free market system will generate a so-called Pareto optimal result, which means a result with the characteristic that one cannot improve the utility of one person without diminishing the utility of at least one other person.  What’s so special about that?  Well, if you go beyond that point then you’re getting into the whole issue of interpersonal utility comparisons and we’ve already discussed that the definition of utility used in economic theory cannot support interpersonal utility comparisons.  So Pareto optimality is really as far as one can go in terms of talking about desirable results within economic theory.  When you go beyond that you’re in the realm of broader social philosophy.

Now I know many people interested in neoclassical economic theory and its relevance (if any) to the real world often like to discuss the whole issue of the conditions that are required for a free market to lead to this Pareto optimal result.  That is, how likely are those conditions to occur and to be maintained, etc.  And that is a somewhat interesting issue to be sure.  However, I’d let to set aside that particular can of worms and instead just talk about a hypothetical situation in which all the necessary conditions do indeed hold.  Now, in this situation, what does economic theory have to say about the desirability of pursing free market policies relative to pursing other policies that would render some people better off and some people worse off?  Nothing.  As I said before, economic theory cannot address situations involving interpersonal utility comparisons.

So how do many conservatives get the idea it does say something?  Well, there seem to me to be two things that are probably going on.

First, we have the theoretical result that regardless of what distribution of resources (that is to say, what pattern of winners and losers) you’re currently operating under, if the necessary conditions are met, then a free market system will be Pareto optimal.  Then you have the theoretical result that if you don’t particularly care for the free market result under the status quo distribution of resources, but you could generate a distribution of resources you thought was ethically preferable, then you would support the free market result associated with that particular distribution of resources because, again, that’s as far as you could go without making at least one person better off and one person worse off, that is to say, without changing the distribution of resources you think is ethically justifiable.  I think these results sometimes generate a bit of conceptual confusion that implies if you just manage to get to any free market result then you’re somewhat close to all the other potential free market results so in a sense you’re halfway to wherever you want to go.  All you have to do at that point is address the distributional issues and there you are.  The problem is that this is really rather misleading.  Moving to one particular free market outcome doesn’t actually bring you any closer or indeed necessarily anywhere near some other free market outcome you might prefer under whatever value system you happen to be operating under.  In fact, it may actually prevent you from ever getting to that other free market outcome by preventing the change in resource distribution that would support the free market outcome you prefer.  That is to say, one can indeed theoretically get to wherever one wants to go, at least at a particular point in time, by manipulating the distribution of resources under a free market regime, but there is really nothing in economic theory to suggest it will be easier or less costly to pull off changing the distribution of resources in this manner (again, possibly continuously if you wish to maintain some desired result) then it would be to pursue non-market solutions that make some people better off and some people worse off.

Second, I think sometimes people draw some erroneous conclusions from the fact that economic theory is neutral with respect to values that are outside the realm of utility as defined within economic theory.  In particular, some people (and I mean some people who are conservatives) seem to interpret this to mean one should give preferential treatment to the status quo distribution of resources (that is, the current pattern of winners and losers) and the free market outcome that goes with that distribution because there’s no justification within economic theory for changing it.  Again, this is incorrect.  If you’re going to be neutral with respect to values that go beyond utility as defined in economics then you should be indifferent between any two results that involve interpersonal utility comparisons.  If you prefer or privilege one result, such as the free market result generated by the status quo distribution of resources, then you’re making some type of additional value judgment.  You’re saying either that there is something ethically preferable about the current distribution of resources relative to other potential distributions or you’re saying there is something ethically preferable about supporting the status quo whatever it may be, that is, whatever distribution of resources you happen to find yourself under.  Needless to say, neither of these value judgments is justified within economic theory.  (You can see this type of thinking in spades with the current crop of conservative Republican presidential candidates.  According to these people, anything critical of the status quo represents a form of class conflict, but anything that preserves the status quo represents the absence of class conflict.  In other words, it’s different when I do it.)

So in other words, I think the conservative notion that economic theory supports a simplistic free market social philosophy is based mostly on their ignorance of the theory or, I don’t know, maybe their understanding of the theory and how it can be misused to support their agenda.  Now don’t get me wrong.  As I’ve said before, I don’t actually mind free markets — usually.  And I also don’t mind if someone supports the status quo distribution of resources.  It doesn’t seem all that bad to me in general, although there is some obvious room for improvement.  So heck, knock yourself out.  I’m just saying that in terms of intellectual honesty you should be prepared to discuss the value judgments that lead you to those conclusions rather than trying to tie it in to economic theory because economic theory isn’t going to get you there by itself.  So the irritating thing to me about conservatives is not necessarily their actual social beliefs, per se.  We can discuss those.  No, it’s the fact that they’re often not really very upfront about their social beliefs so there’s often no way to get to the value judgments one would really like to discuss.  And it’s doubly irritating when conservatives suggest one’s failure to agree with their unstated value judgments is due to one’s ignorance of economic theory.

Oh, and one last point, if you happen to read anything about Vilfredo Pareto, the nineteenth century Italian economist who came up with the whole Pareto optimality argument then you may begin to wonder if some of the apparent confusion over the relationship of conservative social ideology and neoclassical economic theory wasn’t entirely intentional.  According to the biography on Wikipedia Signore Pareto was something of the arch-conservative who was quite concerned with fighting the evils of socialism, reducing the role of government, etc.  Yes, he eventually embraced Mussolini’s fascism but that was because he apparently saw it as a transition to the minimal state he thought would liberate economic forces.  (Yeah, I know.  The fascist thing doesn’t seem to make a huge amount of sense in hindsight but I think the popular belief at the time was that you first had to defeat socialism by any means necessary.)  Anyway, among the more interesting of the various right wing beliefs he apparently espoused in his writings was that democracy is a fraud, there is no such thing as progress in human history, a very unequal distribution of wealth is a “social law” caused by something “in the nature of man,” and the weak should starve so society would not become degenerate.  Yep, that’s right.  Apparently, according to Signore Pareto one can “compare the social body to the human body, which will promptly perish if prevented from eliminating toxins.” (Move over Ayn Rand, I think conservatives might have found themselves a new icon!)  Anyway, sort of makes one wonder how hard he was really trying to avoid confusion about the severely restricted policy implications of economic theory one gets when one uses a definition of utility that cannot support interpersonal utility comparisons and instead focuses on the notion of Pareto optimality or if that was not indeed the whole point of the exercise.

TV

Welcome friends!

So I was watching the TV the other day and I ran across some schlock called the X Factor.  I have to say I found it pretty nauseating, so I thought I might as well sit down and try to figure it all out.  I mean, it’s just a TV show, right?  Well, guess what.  I eventually decided that my reaction to the show had something to do with the conservative ethos.  Am I losing it or is conservatism is some shape or form really behind everything that’s ugly in the world?  Well, I don’t know.  I’ll let you be the judge of that.

OK, so what set me off this time?  Well, this particular network masterpiece is one of those talent shows in which young people (mostly), many of them unemployed or underemployed or just down on their luck in some way (thanks mostly to the Republican Party, Wall Street, real estate tycoons, and their legions of conservative enablers), try to impress a panel of random performers and assorted industry c__pmeisters to win some money or a recording contract or whatever the hell it is.  It’s quite a spectacle.  Unfortunately, it’s not a very pleasant one... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

The Supreme Court v Common Sense

Welcome friends!

Did you notice the Supreme Court’s somewhat recent decision that the US Constitution ensures the right of underaged kids to buy violent and sadistic video games?  Who knew?  Well, yes, it is a little comical when you think about it, but it does fit right in with some of their other recent rulings, for example, the one about how people have a constitutional right to parade around with hate signs and loudspeakers at other people’s funerals.  Oh, and then we had the one about campaign financing.  Apparently, the state of Arizona came up with some type of innovative approach to leveling the campaign financing playing field with respect to candidates who don’t want to play up to big money donors but who do manage to get a certain amount of small donations from the little people.  (No, not hobbits.  I’m talking about you and me, buddy.)  Turns out that is definitely against the Constitution.  And wasn’t there another one?  Something about the Constitution supposedly saying that no one may restrict political donations from big corporations because, hey, they’re just people ... like you and me, just with a heck of a lot more money? ... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

War

Welcome friends!

I thought I’d go ahead and do a post on war this time.  I’ve been putting it off because I suppose my thoughts on the subject are actually pretty limited.  (What?  It’s never stopped me before?  Thanks a lot, smarty.)  OK, well, to get the ball rolling let me just say at the outset that like most Americans I really don’t like war.  From what I know, I think General Sherman pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said, “War is hell.”  It seems to me to be an ugly business that ends up brutalizing everyone involved.  Basically, it represents the failure of everything that is good about humanity and as such it’s something that one should only do when one has exhausted every other possible means to solve a problem that absolutely must be solved.  So it should come as no surprise when I say that I think the legitimate reasons for going to war are very limited indeed.  (OK, I haven’t actually thought that part out; but, anyway, they’re very limited, I’m sure about that.)  I think most debates about war in this country come down to cases in which some people feel that some situation or other is one of those dire cases in which war is absolutely necessary and other people disagree.  The debate may at times be carried out in more general terms involving war as an abstract concept, but I think that is more of a rhetorical flourish than anything else.  In our hearts, I think pretty much everyone realizes that we cannot always avoid war, no matter how much we would like to... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Religion and the Great I in the Sky

Welcome friends!

I was reading another religious diatribe the other day that was basically arguing that gay people don’t really exist (apparently everyone is really straight but some straight people insist on “acting gay,” which actually would be a little irritating if you think about it), and it got me thinking about why so many religious folk seem to be so challenged by the concept of human sexual diversity and other issues that scientists and researchers have accepted for years, such as the basic soundness of the theory of evolution.  I think I had a sort of epiphany, which is that these phenomena point to a fundamental problem inherent in much of Western religion: intellectual hubris and egotism...  Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

Great Economists - Not

Welcome friends!

I was reading some articles the other day about the general lack of consensus among professional academic economists on certain fundamental theoretical economic issues, such as the soundness of the Keynesian prescription for counter-cyclical government spending.  I have to say I found the stories a bit irritating, with various eminent economists blithely spouting off about how their opponent is a “great economist, but ...”  What’s my problem with that?  Doesn’t healthy and polite intellectual debate indicate a robust field of inquiry?  Isn’t that a good thing?  Well, yes and no.

Now there’s certainly nothing novel about suggesting many economists appear to be motivated more by their own internalized social philosophy than by any abstract interest in the field of economics, per se.  Basically, it seems economists who don’t like government but are in awe of private industry are naturally drawn to theories in which private markets are the solution to every problem and government activity is invariably ineffectual or counterproductive.  In contrast, economists who are comfortable with the idea of government and have more nuanced views of the pros and cons of private industry are naturally drawn to theories in which maybe private markets are optimal in certain situations and maybe they aren’t and in which government activity is inherently no more or less likely to be ineffectual or counterproductive than any other course of action.  They each provide their side of the story, as it were, and hopefully we all learn something from the dialogue.

I suppose the situation with respect to personal motivations is rather similar to what goes on in what people call (or used to call) the “hard sciences.”  Maybe it doesn’t involve social philosophy, per se, but I suppose these scientists also have all sorts of extraneous reasons about why they choose to investigate or promote one theory over another.

No, the problem I have with economists is not that they often seem to be motivated largely by their own personal beliefs, it’s that many economists seem to have no real commitment to economics as an intellectual discipline.  This comes out in two ways.  First, in their zeal to push their particular agenda many economists do not seem to adequately frame their theories and findings in the broader context of economic inquiry.  To be blunt, they seem to be in rather a hurry to claim to know things when it’s pretty obvious there is significant disagreement on the point in question.  Second, many economists do not seem to be content to simply be technical experts who provide one input among many on policy questions, the economic consequences of various courses of action; they often seem to want to determine economic policy.  But determining economic policy requires them to be social philosophers as well as economists, that is, to make value judgments on certain issues, and they’re basically not very good at thinking through the relevant issues in my opinion.  (Or maybe I should say they don’t seem to me to be any better at it than any other random person walking down the street.  I mean, working out a page of equations doesn’t really prepare one very well for appreciating the limitations of the economic concept of utility as a moral construct, does it?)  In a nutshell, it’s rather obvious many economists simply want to be big shots when it comes to economic policy discussions and are all too willing to ignore the limitations of their chosen field in their quest to bring this about.

In contrast, what types of things do I suppose a really “great economist” would say?  Well, I suppose he or she might come out with statements like the following: “There is a high level of evidence and broad agreement within the economics profession for theory X.  I am working on a more controversial theory Y and I’ve recently found confirming results Z.  We don’t really know the answer to this question right now but we are continuing to work on it.  However, irrespective of any potential future consensus, it should be noted applying this theory to economic policy questions involves value issues we are not really equipped to deal with in any serious way within the field of economics.  To understand these issues, one should really see the recent paper by eminent social philosopher Joe Blow, who lays out some of the relevant ethical issues in some detail.”  Now obviously to be this type of economist one would need to be intellectually honest, humble, collaborative, and just basically willing to acknowledge the limitations of the field and to share the stage with other people.  So, do I hear a lot from what I consider great economists?  No, not really.  Sorry.  I hear a lot from economists who publish lots of academic papers, work at prestigious schools, come up with ingenious theories, like to talk, are close to some political bigwig or other, and do all manner of other things, but great economists?  No, not really.

What happens when we have all these rather less than great economists blabbing away and lauding one another as great economists?  Well, I think to the man in the street it looks as though there are actually any number of economists who can rightfully claim to have all the answers, and they’re all “great,” so who really knows?  It’s really just a matter of shopping around until one finds an economist whose theories fit one’s prior beliefs about how the world works or ought to work and then just trotting out some of his or her findings whenever one needs some intellectual ammunition to defend one’s preconceived opinions on policy questions.  It’s pretty hard for anyone else to disagree with this sort of subject matter expert so if you want to rebut that type of argument, well you need to go shopping for your own economist.  And so it goes.  You end up with people at one level arguing past each other and citing different “experts,” and if you look into it, you find the ostensible experts arguing past each other as well.  Doesn’t really make for a very productive public discussion if you think about it.  More like a colossal waste of time.  I wonder if that is one reason our population is becoming ever more anti-intellectual and economically illiterate.

So to all you economists out there, please fix your profession so we can have a more productive discussion of economic issues.  I would really appreciate it.

The Two Headed Monster of Conservatism

Welcome friends!

I read an article recently I think really illustrates the differences between the two main types of conservatives in the US: social conservatives and economic conservatives.  As I’ve argued before (see my introductory posts for example), these different types of conservatives have very different philosophies and agendas.  Indeed, I suppose it only makes sense to talk of them as both representing forms of “conservatism” because they share a common enemy: liberalism.  Of course, the two types of conservatives are at war with liberalism for different reasons.

Social conservatives despise liberalism because most liberals, regardless of their personal views on religion, are committed to a sphere of personal liberty (that would be when one’s actions don’t have a significant effect on the welfare of other people) and support the associated notion of the separation of church and state.  In contrast, social conservatism is all about using state power to force other people to follow one’s own religious beliefs and merging religion and government to help bring that about.

Economic conservatives, on the other hand, despise liberalism because most liberals don’t buy their argument that market systems are infallible, and liberals are therefore willing to consider regulation and oversight in some cases to address such issues as market stability, distributional concerns, and social welfare issues.  Economic conservatives believe if you can just get the surrounding legal institutions perfectly right (yes, that involves government, politics, and law, but that doesn’t count as “regulation” in the world view of economic conservatives, in case you were wondering), then private markets will always lead to optimal outcomes.  Thus, they don’t see any valid reason to concern themselves with distributional or social welfare issues.  For economic conservatives, whatever outcome falls out of this sort of perfected market system is by definition the ethically optimal one.

Anyway, the article I was reading the other day was about two of the guiding spirits of these two very different groups of conservatives: 1) Jesus Christ in the case of many social conservatives and 2) Ayn Rand in the case of many economic conservatives.  (The article notes conservative leaders Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Rush Limbaugh have all said they admire Rand.)  Now, as the article points out, these two people / spiritual entities didn’t exactly see eye to eye on a number of issues.  Jesus Christ famously taught people should love one another, have compassion for those less fortunate than themselves, etc.  Ayn Rand was an old time Russian emigre who was clearly traumatized by the communist revolution in that country, in which her father apparently lost his business, and went on to write novels and develop a sort of amateur social philosophy that was all about the importance of egotism and self interest as the great motivating force for mankind and was highly critical of any talk revolving around concern for others.  Eric Sapp, the executive director of a group named The American Values Network, a group of political activists and pastors, noted recently that “Rand said religion was ‘evil,’ called the message of John 3:16 ‘monstrous,’ argued the weak are beyond love and undeserving of it, that loving your neighbor was immoral and impossible…”

Now I think I can see where Ms. Rand was coming from.  Even those of us who were not caught up in the violent excesses of the Russian Revolution can think of examples of do-gooders who end up doing rather more harm than good.  And we can probably all think of examples in which people behaved like selfish jerks but it all worked out for the best.  However, I’m afraid I can’t really take her overall social philosophy very seriously.  After all, some do-gooders end up doing good.  And sometimes when people behave like selfish jerks everything goes to hell in a hand basket.  So, you know, I think there’a a certain amount of conservative hyperbole in the entire project.

I suppose the Randian view on social ethics becomes superficially more attractive if you combine it with a rather simple-minded interpretation of the neoclassical economic theory of perfectly competitive markets because (in the popular mind at least) that theory is also based on people acting like selfish jerks and that theory also suggests such behavior leads to socially optimal outcomes.  (I think you’ll find if you talk to someone with somewhat greater knowledge of economic theory that statement doesn’t necessarily hold.  First, the theoretical actors that stand in for people in economic models typically have preferences that aren’t really restricted to their own self-interest narrowly defined, so there’s generally no theoretical restriction with respect to altruism v egotism.  Of course, it is admittedly a bit confusing to talk about someone pursuing their own self-interest by satisfying their preferences for helping others, but there you have it.  Second, if you set aside that issue, then you’re probably going to get involved in a very long and complicated discussion about whether economic theory is meant to be an objective description of how people really are, a theoretical simplification that one can use to try to predict how people act, or a normative ethical theory about how people ought to behave in order to bring about socially optimal results.  That is to say, if you get stuck in this particular side alley, get ready to go round and round and round yet again about whether economic theory says people are selfish jerks, behave roughly as though they were selfish jerks, or ought to be selfish jerks.  Third, and most significantly, you have the entire issue of what economic theory really says, and is really capable of saying, about socially optimal outcomes in the first place, which is something I’ve discussed many times before and will no doubt discuss many times again.)  Of course, I can certainly understand why the selfish jerks of the world are attracted to Rand’s writings.  I suppose that’s why her novels are perpetual best sellers here in the US.  Let’s face it, there’s a lot of it about.

OK, so in this showdown of the conservative super icons, which one do I personally prefer?  The prophet / supernatural entity and champion of love and the little guy Jesus Christ, or the embittered, self-obsessed acolyte of the economic elite Ayn Rand?  Hmm.  Tough one.  I think I’ll have to give the nod to Christ in that contest.  Yes, even though I’m actually an atheist, like Rand, when it comes to ethics I think a lot of what Christ had to say actually makes more a little more sense to me than what Rand had to say.  (If only I could say the same about some of Christ’s modern day followers.)

By the way, in case it hasn’t been obvious in this post or others, I don’t actually think any of us are really that far apart on these types of issues.  I understand many people today are amused by overheated political rhetoric and consider more mature forms of discourse weak and namby-pamby, so I’m willing to play along with that.  (Two headed monster indeed.)  But just a few comments sotto voce.

Despite being a liberal, and a secular humanist one at that, I don’t really have a problem with most religious folk, including most Christians.  Hey, some of my best friends are Christians.  (Did I use that one before?)  No, the only problem I have with Christians is with the overly aggressive and militant ones who try to foist their beliefs on me in situations in which I think personal liberty should prevail (i.e., situations in which one’s behavior doesn’t really have a significant impact on other people).  You know, thanks buddy, but I think I can handle those types of moral issues on my own.  I do have a brain you know.  Well, a sort of one, anyway.  And I’m obviously no expert on the subject, but I’ve never really conceived of Jesus Christ behaving that way anyway, so I’m not exactly sure that bit is really in the Bible.  The same goes for people of other religious persuasions.  Well, OK, I suppose I might also disagree with whatever the various permutations of religious ethics have to say about issues that are not in the sphere of personal liberty, but I’m willing to get in there and debate those issues on their merits, so I’m fine with that.

Similarly, I don’t really have a big problem with people who see a lot of merit in market systems because I see a lot of merit in market systems myself.  Again, the only problem I have is when people start to espouse extreme positions and begin to worship real-world markets as infallible generators and arbiters of social welfare.  I just don’t think that’s very realistic.  First of all, there are all types of real world markets; they’re not all the perfectly competitive ones I think these people probably have in mind.  Some market arrangements don’t actually lead to what economists would characterize as optimal results even on paper.  And trying to figure out how close any given real market is to the theoretical model of a perfectly competitive market, or how to modify it so it becomes close enough, or how to keep it there once it’s there, are no small tasks.  Second, I think history shows market systems in general are prone to things like cycles, bubbles, collapses, and what not; and those types of things can be pretty darned disruptive.  You might wish market systems would just run like clockwork churning out the optimal level of goods and services year in and year out, but I’m afraid history shows that’s not actually the case.  Third, I don’t really see any mechanism in even the theory of market systems, let alone reality, that ensures distributional outcomes will be fair, just, or ethically optimal, and to me that’s as big a part of what any economic system is about as the total quantity of goods and services it produces.  (I’ve discussed the misleading way some accounts of economic theory pretend it can establish socially optimal economic arrangements without discussing distributional issues in previous posts.  For example, see my post on liberals and economic theory.  Or just keep reading my blog.  I’m sure I’ll get around to discussing it again.  And again.)

So philosophically I don’t think we’re really all that far apart.  Eliminate the extremism and I suppose we’re all really liberals at heart.

References

Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both? John Blake. CNN, June 29, 2011. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/?hpt=hp_c2