Okay, I promised I wouldn't talk shop but these libertarians are pissing me off no end, so here goes...
1. Well, for markets to work one requires a lot of things: no externalities, perfect information, no transaction costs and so on.
2. The underlying assumptions of the economic agent in a market are rather restrictive: preferences are given and he is self-interested, rational (the latter itself usually only a narrow concept-that of consistency-and doesn't consider being able to rationally choose ends or weakness of will arkasia). So, other motivations are usually left out (commitments, altruism, duty-all of these things can hardly be accounted for) or considered to be veiled forms of self-interest. And here we're dealing in tautologies. Don't mention Adam Smith. Seriously.
As Mary Douglas says, economics deals with "missing persons" or the needs of strangers.
Identity is not important (class or ethnicity, say) nor is solidarity or positive freedom. Markets deal with solved political problems (Abe Lerner). No wonder libertarians choke when they utter the word 'we'. Thatcher: there is no such thing as society.
..Ah, to be alone in Paradise.
3. What do markets have to say about distribution or fairness or equality? Very little under the standard approach. So, once again an impoverished conception. But even the Pareto principle isn't really neutral-and it's not clear that it is very useful in day-to-day evaluations (how many projects or policies lead to no-one being made worse-off?).
4. Where there is no trust there are no contracts.
--Hobbes.
The idea that markets just evolve spontaneously is questioned by Braudel, Polanyi, Platteau. In any case, they require something above them -institutions, culture, law, courts, enforcement mechanisms for them to work. Where the costs of setting up formal mechanisms is too great we would expect informal mechanisms to exist (Avner Greif) .
5. 'the Market'.
Begs the question of whether we can say that the market for corn is the same as labour, credit, insurance markets. In any case, economists have recognized that actual markets work in different ways to the theoretical approach. Labour markets, for instance (see Marsden, Akerlof..even old Pigou claimed that 'non-market' factors can play a role). The point being, a small percentage of actual markets conform to the theoretical picture (20% according to the general equilibrium theorist, Morishima). Harp on all you want about imperfections, but sooner or later you're going to have to realise that the neo-classical paradigm only represents one special case of how markets work.
6. How does a market work?
Why, there's an auctioneer, of course. Who? Not only has this fabled creature never been spotted, it's not clear whether by collecting information he isn't a centralised mechanism! And even here, in the general equilibrium setting, it is not clear if we get to a stable, unique equilibrium.
It is also the case that the world of GET (General Equilibrium Theory) is in fact a dream world, a world which is not totally workable in the context of actual society.
--M.Morishima.
7. Even after all that you will still hear the shallow and mind-numbingly narrow view that everything can be conceived in market terms. Marriage, for instance. Well, you've got buyers and sellers, haven't you? Here one might here an american voice: what's the bottom dollar, show me the money, time is money. Yeah, right. We killed so many people in Iraq but at least my tax money was utilised well. Bang for the buck, so to say.
Same goes with the environment. The poet sees a tree, the libertarian a table or a resource. Why vote?Cost-benefit. No sense of tragedy (Nussbaum) or civic responsibility. Instead, me, myself and I. What is education? Let me get out my calculator.
I dunno, they just sound staggeringly stupid to me. I have even heard one blogger say: if his friend makes a choice to jump out of a window he would feel under no obligation to help him! Their disdain for human values is remarkable. Those on welfare are "losers" (to use another americanism), and if you believe in the welfare state you're a god-damned commie!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
now if it wasn't about such serious things, i am almost tempted to say, what a great example of 'debunking'.
The guy we have here fore teachign ethics (gametheory) and political philosophy (Nozick &c) recently in a flash of genius confessed that it is probably callous to judge the poor for their 'irrational' choices. those terrorist libertarians and related are a real problem.
Hello, anton.
Perhaps 'rant' is a better word.
I like your use of the word terrorist because I think that does capture something of what they are often about..i.e a fundamentalist mind-set that sees the world through one eye, so to speak.
For me, the desperately sad thing in all this is the sheer reductionism involved. As if one could simplfy the whole complexity of human behaviour down to a few simple and simplistic notions, and as if human beings could talk about other human beings as if they were just commodities or 'things' ("dots or dreams").
It is not so great a distance from thinking of people as "human capital" or "losers" , "uselss" to thinking of them as just numbers-and Primo Levi tells what that entails.
Can't but help think that this is linked to thinking of the 'I' as separate from everything else (but that's something you know more about; mine are only throwaway comments) I think Augustine would call it a lonely freedom.
Hope all is well.
Great to hear from you,as usual!
Take care,
b.
good morning...
i entirely agree with you on all points of your debunktionish rant, staggeringly stupid they are you say, yes this reduction of complex behaviour is in my eyes of some adventurous immaturity, to say the least. It would be hard to take them serious if they had not become so successful these days.
you've done so much interesting stuff here the last days. i must have a look. as you write above about greyness and the poor red squirrels, here is a grey quote for you (i know it's an old hat, but beautiful though and teaches some humbleness) "Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering." - Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right
hope you're well too with all the bombs and stuff
Post a Comment