Friday, November 30, 2018

Conservative Economic Ideology and Socialism

Welcome friends!

I know I was supposed to stop talking about economic issues for a little while but I wanted to follow up a bit on a point I mentioned last time (and most likely any number of times previously): the intellectual relationship between “socialism” broadly conceived and neoclassical economic theory on the one hand and the conservative “free market” economic ideology sometimes associated with economic theory or anyway with certain flawed interpretations of economic theory on the other hand.  Hey, what can I say?  It’s my thing or one of my things anyway.  I think it’s interesting.  I might be the only one, but still.  Allow me to indulge myself once again and I’ll be back with some non-economic content next time.  Maybe.  Or maybe the time after that.  Let’s just say soon to be on the safe side.  That’s the thing about the multi-headed monster of contemporary conservative: spend too long staring into the empty unblinking eyes of any one head and next thing you know one of the other heads might just take a bite out of your backside.

Let’s do neoclassical economic theory first.  I know I’ve done a couple of posts about how President Trump and the Republican Party have diverged recently from conservative economic orthodoxy in the direction of national something or other, not national socialism per se but something very much like.  What were they calling it?  Economic nationalism?  Something like that?  Anyway, that’s not what I’m talking about this time out.  I’m talking about the supposed basis of conservative economic ideology in it’s purest and most traditional form: neoclassical economic theory.  If you’re familiar with economic theory youll know it talks or purports to talk an awful lot about what is best for society at large.  The ostensible endpoints of interest are presented correctly or incorrectly as “socially optimal outcomes” or “social optimums.”  If one considers accepting the objective of attending to the overall welfare of society the hallmark of “socialism” at it’s most fundamental level, which I think is really the only sensible way to interpret the word, then neoclassical economic theory must I think be classified as a form or variant of socialism.  As I (and even more eloquently Mr. Kranekpantzen) have pointed out repeatedly the funny thing of course is that economic theory doesn’t really work as advertised.  It attempts to derive recommendations for socially optimal economic arrangements without considering the distributional aspects of those arrangements; however, it doesn’t and logically never could.  Everyone has beliefs relating to fair or optimal distributions or mechanisms of distribution and hence there’s really no way to talk about social optimality in any meaningful way without getting into those types of issues.  And economic systems inevitably distribute goods one way or another whether we like it or not.  We can’t set up an economic system that is agnostic between all possible distributions.  So really there’s no way to support particular economic arrangements without also supporting particular distributions unless one breaks out those economic arrangements that relate to distributions, which is a bit awkward to say the least since those represent a pretty big chunk of what we consider economic arrangements in the first place (most notably the labor market but also taxes, inheritance laws, etc.)  The notion that economic theory can establish the case for perfectly competitive markets without taking up distributional issues is all a big misunderstanding or if you’re of a more conspiratorial frame of mind a load of purposefully misleading claptrap, which provides a convenient segue to the slow-witted cousin of economic theory: conservative "free market" economic ideology.

As one might suppose based on flawed economic theory or at least certain conventional but flawed interpretations of that theory one can find conservatives (of the economic variety) who seem a little confused by that theory and honestly feel not only that a “free market” equates to a perfectly competitive market but that a perfectly competitive market equates to the best we can do as a society.  From a liberal perspective these conservatives may be considered the “good” or at least better sort of economic conservatives in the sense they agree with liberals on the ends although obviously not the means.  This is the type of economic conservative who tends to have a superficial knowledge of neoclassical economic theory from sources like the ubiquitous Econ 101 and to take it very, very seriously albeit entirely uncritically.  In the vernacular, they accept the theory or anyway the conventional flawed interpretations of that theory hook, line, and sinker.  These particular conservatives tend to have a condescending air toward liberals and leftists because they view them as basically rather silly uneducated or irrational people whose hearts may be in the right place but who just can’t or don’t understand the mathematical and geometric intricacies of economic theory.  It makes them a little annoying particularly for liberals who have studied economics in a rather more serious way but not usually insufferably so.  This type of economic conservative tends to take a relatively narrow view of “socialism” that equates it to particular economic arrangements such as government ownership or shared ownership of businesses and so on.  One assumes they would generally take umbrage at the notion their own ideology is based on what must ultimately be considered a particular formulation of the socialist ethos because it suggests the welfare of society at large in fact matters.  However, it’s not all relative goodness and light even with this lot.  These conservatives like their less wholesome brothers and sisters have a dark side.  In particular, they tend to harbor a profound fear, distrust, and sometimes even abject hatred for democratic government because they believe ignorant people, such as liberals or progressives or leftists of all sorts, may use their democratic voting power to force government to “interfere” with existing market arrangements to make them more stable or equitable thereby unwittingly harming society by shifting it off its supposed optimum.

The bad type of economic conservative from a liberal or leftist perspective rejects the goal of attending to the welfare of society at large in favor of viewing the world as a vicious dog eat dog affair in which the only ethically acceptable objective is to do the best one can for oneself and perhaps one’s loved ones and let everyone else fare as they may.  These are the conservatives of the Ayn Randian, ubermensch, Me Generation, greed is good, unbridled egotism variety.  If they appear to support the findings of economic theory itbecause they understand perfectly well it doesn’t really work as advertised and in particular don’t take the flawed arguments in that theory about “social optimums” seriously even for a moment.  No, they believe there are inevitably winners and losers in human society and they’re doing everything they can to ensure they’re one of the former.  They don’t see the point of worrying about the fate of the “losers.”  They don’t harbor any romantic notions that market economies work out well for everyone or even that one should speak honestly and seriously about political or economic or philosophical matters so we can work together collectively and collaboratively toward common ends like what’s best for society at large but instead view communication as a rhetorical tool to obtain or maintain power of both the economic and political variety.  This is the sort of conservative that has recently taken center stage with all the Trumpian double-talk and fake news and “alternative facts.”  They sometimes espouse a rather mangled or cherry picked version of economic theory not because they believe it has any intellectual merit but because they think it might muddy the water enough to keep the better sort of more civic-minded economic conservative on board while providing them with what they want themselves: an attractive rhetorical defense of their own economic power.  These conservatives tend to view liberals and leftists in general as not just silly uneducated people who may mean well but simply don’t understand economics but rather as wily and quite often overly educated people who understand economic theory rather better than they ought but who are essentially evil people with flawed ethics and in particular adherents of “socialism” defined as the incorrect and dangerous ethical proposition what happens to one’s fellows matters.  Their relatively broad view of socialism means they tend to see the dangers of socialism everywhere because of course socialism broadly defined as a concern for one’s fellows is everywhere in most functioning societies including our own.  These conservatives are intensely and blatantly opposed to democratic government unless they have an effective way to control it and use it to their own personal advantage, as they do currently with the Trump administration.  This group’s shifting positions on practical economic issues like tariffs and deficits and so on can take the well-meaning but relatively slow-witted “good” economic conservatives by surprise and has led to a lot of hand-wringing among the latter tribe about what it means to be a “real” economic conservative.

So what’s my point for today?  Difficult to say.  People who believe in democratic government and have certain beliefs relating to social welfare or economic justice need to fight economic conservatism in both forms but perhaps there’s something to be gained by keeping in mind it’s not always about one’s values; sometimes it’s about ignorance.  Liberals and leftists need to fight the economic head of the multi-headed monster of contemporary conservatism on both fronts.  We need to keep banging on about the shortcomings and illogical bits of neoclassical economic theory as well as pointing out the errors in the flawed interpretations of that theory one finds in popular conservative economic ideology on the one hand, and we need to argue the case for our ethical beliefs regarding one’s responsibilities toward one’s fellows against the stylings of the conservative anti-social disciples of personal greed and all consuming egotism on the other.  So let’s get to it!

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Brexit, Trump, and the Anti-Social Tendency of Conservative Ideology

Welcome friends!

How about those Brexit negotiations?  They seem to be shaping up into what our British friends might call a bit of a shambles.  Actually I suppose that’s what we Americans might also call it, which doesn’t seem very clever.  I wish I knew another expression for a shambles that would be more unique to the UK in honor of their apparently perpetually wounded sense of nationhood.  I tried to look it up online just now but I ended up back at shambles.  Oh well.  The point is I think pretty much everyone agrees at this point it is indeed a bit of a shambles although I did read Prime Minister May is gamely attempting a Pee-Wee Herman-esque “I meant to do that,” just not sure anyone’s really buying it.  But you know maybe it was fate the best word to describe the thing would be common to American English and English English or I suppose more properly the rather clunky sounding UK English (some days you just can’t win).  Indeed, I can’t help but see certain similarities between the waving of the old red, white, and blue on both sides of the Atlantic and to see shades of Brexititis in President Trump’s rejecting trade treaties and savaging our traditional allies and trading partners.  Maybe it’s just me but I wonder if they might be related in some way such as for example the pervasive undercurrent of conservative economic ideology in both the UK and the USA.  I know I’ve written about economics the last few times out but here I am again.  I must have economics on the brain just now.  There’s a scary thought.  Well, let me try to get it out of my system so I can talk about something totally different next week.

As I’m sure I must have pointed out before many, many times one of the distinctive and conceptually funny things about conservative economic ideology is the hoary image of the national economy working like an old eighteenth century Deist gentleman’s watch.  We might need to collaborate as a society in constructing the watch or to be brutally literal the legal institutions and conditions associated with the “free market” (or to be theoretically correct the all too elusive perfectly competitive market but never mind) but once we collaborate to get things set up we will all do as good as we can and everyone will ostensibly get exactly what he or she deserves if we all just focus on our own greed and spare nary a thought for our fellows.  Properly considered or anyway as originally conceived by our bewigged ancestors the system was meant to serve everyone originally in the utilitarian sense of bringing the greatest happiness to the greatest number and later, when they eventually realized that argument doesn’t really hold water, in the more Old Testament sense economic justice will be served.  “Free market” economics was considered the natural accompaniment to political democracy because surely everyone would demand that system which would serve them best if not materially as originally thought then at least in the sense of a shared satisfaction that economic justice will prevail.  In that sense one might think of old time conservatism as an offshoot of other socialist ideologies that take as their ultimate objectives the welfare or at least interests of society at large.

Of course as fate would have it a funny thing happened along the way.  In their zeal to prevent other people mucking up the gears trying to help the less fortunate conservatives began to stress more and more the second step of their two step program for attaining social nirvana.  All too soon the institutions and conditions associated with the market were not something we could count on others to understand or to agree with.  We were no longer all on the same page.  As a defensive reaction the rationale for the institutions began to take on a non-human and other worldly air.  They became associated with natural laws but not those of the god of the Deists looking after his flock with a system plain to all who cared to look but with the cold hard inhumanity of outer space.  The free market was good and fair whether other people understood it or agreed with it or not.  Political democracy became suspect as the mechanism by which do-gooders and leftists of all description might foolishly thumb their noses at the universe and meddle in things that ought not to be meddled in.  Democratic government became dangerous and something to be minimized and neutered.  People who cared for other people or had different notions of economic justice became the “socialist” bogeyman of the conservative intent on enslaving others and destroying economies and societies.  Co-operation with other people and indeed even thinking of other people became suspect.  The Me Generation was born with boundless greed, egotism, and hubris hating the thought of ever compromising with or indeed acknowledging the existence of any other living being.

When this twisted monster child of once noble conservatism encounters any form of society it cannot control it strives mightily to throw it off in a rage of righteous indignation.  Here in the USA conservatives have long raged against our democratic federal government.  While that sentiment appears to have subsided somewhat not being based on any principle really beyond their perceptions of our government’s ability to give them what they want when they want it there are yet other groups determined to enforce their will upon the Great I.  International groups like NATO, trade organizations, allies trying to trap us into their little treaties.  It’s an outrage conservatives simply cannot abide.  Their ancient clock says its time for personal greed and the unbridled lust for power not the time to work with others people toward common goals.  In the UK they have Brexit.  They don’t need no stinking EU!  Here in the USA we have that great orange man-child President Trump pouting and stamping his little feet in the White House, followed everywhere by his weak and sycophantic toadies in the Republican Party rushing to find his blanket or binky in the hopes he may vomit out more coin their way.

Does that sound about right?  Maybe I’m seeing things.  Societies don’t always work out.  Civilizations fall.  Nations fall in love with themselves and go to war on behalf of their beloved.  Happens all the time.  It’s a story as old as time.  But hard to avoid the feeling those unfortunate events are a great deal more likely to occur if one starts with the conservative anti-social sentiment that giving a thought to one’s fellow man is the root of all evil than with the notion we humans are at heart social animals and that the wealth and power cooperation and coordination brings is both our essence and our destiny.  Long live the Liberal Ethos!

Friday, November 2, 2018

Does Economic Conservatism Still Exist?

Welcome friends!

As the conservative movement here in the USA has increasingly taken up nativism, racism, nationalism, and other bits and pieces of European-style right wing fascist-style claptrap one may reasonably wonder what remains of my original characterization of the domestic conservative movement as a two-headed monster composed primarily of economic conservatives on the one hand and religious conservatives on the other.  (I believe I later revised that to a three-headed monster to give equal billing to what I called political conservatism although later still I speculated political conservatism was likely simply economic conservatism in a political guise so I wasn’t entirely sure it warranted its own head on the beast.)  I’ve always been particularly and possibly inordinately interested in economic conservatism because as a one-time student of economics myself I’ve long considered economic conservatism to be rooted in both limitations and misunderstandings of neoclassical economic theory as summarized by my kindred spirit Hansel Krankepantzen in his You Tube video and Kindle e-book on economic theory and distributional issues.  Briefly economic conservatism is the notion government activity should be restricted to trying to bring real world markets acceptably close to the perfectly competitive ideal (although how close is close enough is of course left conveniently indeterminate) after which all will ostensibly be right with the world and in particular everyone will get exactly what’s coming to them at least as long as democratic government doesn’t muck up the works.  The great bugbear of economic conservatism is that one will object to the distributive results of a perfectly competitive market system or really the inevitably flawed market system we actually have and hence be tempted to use government to revise those results by providing some sort of assistance to those who may be struggling economically, which is forever characterized by conservatives as “socialism” and thought to lead directly and inevitably to communist authoritarianism, a less than optimal economic output, and a whole host of social ills generally involving the ostensible disappearance of incentives and personal responsibility. 

The curious fact now as I’ve mentioned various ways in various previous posts is that the vast bulk of conservatives no longer appear to take this theory very seriously, which suggests quite strongly what we liberals have long suspected: traditional economic conservatism long ago ceased to function as anything other than empty political rhetoric not taken seriously by those proclaiming it or those receiving those proclamations.  For example, one important component of contemporary American conservatism is apparently the notion American workers must be protected from immigration of both the legal and illegal variety by such Draconian measures as separating young immigrant children from their parents, calling out the US Army to defend the border against what is marketed at least as an invading horde of poor and threatening foreigners, and building a Great Wall along our southern border.  This theme is of course in direct and rather stark contrast to the importance placed on the free movement of labor and capital within economic theory.  According to traditional economic conservatives with their mangled understanding of economic theory a so-called Nanny State protecting a nation’s workers from competition from more highly qualified or cheaper labor arriving from abroad via caravan or tunnel or boat or indeed any other route or mode of transport would represent socialism at its most menacing and destructive.  

The same phenomenon can be seen in the so-called economic nationalism of contemporary American conservatism in which government is expected to set up tariffs and engage in trade wars and so on to protect and encourage American industry.  Again, traditional economic conservatism based on neoclassical economic theory would suggest if foreign competitors have a competitive advantage on whatever it happens to be we should be perfectly happy to allow capital and labor to move there.  

In addition one of the great irritations of traditional economic conservatives has long been the apparent success and hence acceptance of Keynesian economic thinking in which fiscal policy including deficit spending can be used to offset market contractions.  The implied usefulness if not necessity of activist government in keeping the economy on an even keel is of course inconsistent with the traditional images of invisible hands and cosmic clocks and everything running smoothly with no need of human intervention that haunted the imaginations of traditional economic conservatives for so long.  And yet today American conservatives gleefully run up the deficit with tax cuts with no commensurate reductions in spending in an apparent attempt to goose the economy and preempt the sort of catastrophic economic failure that has long been a hallmark of conservative administrations exemplified most recently by the Bush administration in 2008.   

In place of the happy albeit unfounded and profoundly misleading message of traditional economic conservatives that everyone will be made better off if we simply encourage perfectly competitive markets and shrink the economic and social role of democratic government the prevailing conservative economic vision now appears to be a rather darker and more sinister affair of national against nation, industry against industry, worker against worker, with government serving as a sort of feudal overlord dispensing and withholding economic favors based on one’s fealty to the king.

This has led to the creation of a curious sort of creature one might characterize as the Wooly Headed Ancient Conservative: men and women who failed to appreciate the insincere and rhetorical nature of traditional conservative economic ideology and now haunt the world lamenting that conservatives are no longer conservative and so on.  These people never got the memo that conservative economic ideology was never real; that it was only a simplistic and flawed fable that proved useful to some people at for a while in the development of modern conservatism and has now served its purpose; that it’s not now and never was a real thing.  The wealthy conservative elite no longer feels it must hide its lust for power with studiously muddled thinking and pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.  They’ve found a new stratagem.  There’s a new game in town.  It’s time conservatives put away childish things like traditional conservative economic ideology and embraced the brave new world of European-style anti-democratic, racist, nativist, nationalistic, authoritarian, elitist, religious, plutocratic, proto-fascism.  And it’s time all right thinking Americans turn and face the conservative threat to our way of life head on in words and at the ballot box.  Long live American democracy!  Long live the liberal ethos!