Cafe Hayek: If I Were A Shill for Industry....

« How do we know what we know about economics? | Main | Emotional and Ethical Dwarfs» Don Boudreaux

March 13, 2008

If I Were A Shill for Industry....

Don Boudreaux

In this recent blog-post at "Notes," I and my fellow GMU bloggers such as Bryan Caplan, Tyler Cowen, Arnold Kling, Alex Tabarrok, and, of course, Russ Roberts were said to "seem to be shills for industry." Actually, I really like the full quotation, so here it is:

If we were to judge by the internet, then the most influential economists in the world are the George Mason economists of Marginal Revolution, Cafe Hayek, and Econlog. These guys seem to be everywhere. I don't like them much -- they seem to be shills for industry, and just plain lazy. (Consider Kling's offhand comment that dogs impose more of a burden on the environment than SUVs, without any research.) They aren't exactly mainstream, either, but their views are fairly stereotypical.

This accusation of seeming to be a "shill" for industry prompted me to write this column, published today in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Here's a key paragraph:

If I were a shill for industry...I would oppose free markets. Free markets, after all, are markets open to competition that invariably keeps the profits of existing firms from remaining excessive and, often, even bankrupts firms once thought to be invincible industry leaders. Existing firms almost all deplore competition in their industries. They seek government regulations that hamstring rivals and potential rivals. And, of course, firms are forever pleading for "protection" from foreign competition.

I just wrote a book ("Globalization") in which I make a strong and principled case for completely free trade - not free trade sometimes, for some firms, under some circumstances, with some qualifications, but free trade always, for all firms, under all circumstances, and with no qualifications.

Whether my book's case for unalloyed free trade is correct or not, it is surely not the sort of book that causes the heads of many corporate CEOs to nod in eager agreement. The typical reaction of business people whenever they hear or read me make my case for genuinely free trade is to say something like, "Professor Boudreaux, you don't understand the peculiarities of my industry." And then each executive launches into a laundry list of excuses for why Congress should protect his industry from foreign rivals.

If I were an industry shill ...

• I'd express agreement with these self-serving claims and do my best in my writings and speeches to make a case for "fair trade," or "balanced trade," or "trade that's in our national interest" -- but never for free trade.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Myths and Fallacies | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27058266

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If I Were A Shill for Industry....:

Comments

You would think that capitalists would be advocates for capitalism, but no. Capitalists want to buy from a free market and sell into a market protected against competition.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Mar 13, 2008 9:13:21 AM

Wow. Talk about missing Arnold's point. And to discount the value of intuition of someone trained in the field and successful applying his knowledge outside academia. Amazing.

You guys ought to embrace the label though. Proudly call yourselves "shills for industriousness".

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 13, 2008 10:27:43 AM

The "tyranny of the market" (awful choice of words), that some people decry, cuts both ways: consumers want to buy low and sellers want to sell high. But both have to settle for the market price. Meta-knowledge of the market mechanism that lead to this result is not required of the actors involved, but it would make our life more pleasant.

Posted by: Unit | Mar 13, 2008 10:30:07 AM

" If I were an industry shill ...

• I'd express agreement with these self-serving claims and do my best in my writings and speeches to make a case for "fair trade," or "balanced trade," or "trade that's in our national interest" -- but never for free trade. "

You'd be Lou Dobbs then?

Posted by: indiana jim | Mar 13, 2008 10:32:18 AM

Kling has no numbers. He says he would bet, but he names no stakes, and specifies no terms. "Offhand remark" is a poor match.

Posted by: TLH | Mar 13, 2008 10:39:30 AM

Don Boudreaux: "The typical reaction of business people whenever they hear or read me make my case for genuinely free trade is to say something like, "Professor Boudreaux, you don't understand the peculiarities of my industry."

I find this difficult to accept. I usually believe everything you write, but I'm skeptical about this reaction being "typical".

There are probably many business leaders who desire government intervention in their markets. But is that "typical"? Do the majority of industry captains desire "protection" for their products and services? Perhaps the ones who get the most attention by speaking loudly are protectionists. But how can anyone know these are the "typical" reactions of the "typical" business leaders?

I cannot blame a business leader for trying to gain an advantage. When politicians are handing out favors right and left, any executive would be shirking his responsibility by trying to obtain his share. But you are implying they prefer this arrangement.

Professor Boudreaux, I've worked with a few such leaders. I think they detest the power that politicians have to control their fate, and would gladly do away with it all. But they are trapped.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 10:44:33 AM

My last post should have read:

"any executive would be shirking his responsibility by NOT trying to obtain his share"

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 10:46:08 AM

To John Dewey: Perhaps "typical" is too strong a word. But it is surely true that that a FREQUENT reaction of business people whenever they hear or read me make my case for genuinely free trade is to say something like, "Professor Boudreaux, you don't understand the peculiarities of my industry.

Don Boudreaux

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Mar 13, 2008 10:58:17 AM

@TLH: If you read Kling in context, i.e. actually follow his voluminous essays and blog postings, you would understand why that is an offhand comment very atypical of his style, but probably based on sound intuition. I hope that if you're criticizing this one post of Kling's, you avoid spouting off what your intuition is in whatever it is that you do. Furthermore, how does research get done if nobody dares ask "could it be?" for fear that they will be labeled an industry shill? That this posting about SUVs vs. dogs is the new rallying point for opponents of Masonomics just demonstrates the general lack of curiosity and intellectual vacuousness of such people.

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 13, 2008 11:04:40 AM

Brad,

I'm thinking that it says a lot about the persuasive power of Masonomics that the progressive establishment finds it necessary to mount an offensive against it.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 13, 2008 11:14:16 AM

OK, Don. Your explanation makes sense, and I'm back to believing almost everything you write.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 11:14:22 AM

"...I just wrote a book ("Globalization") in which I make a strong and principled case for completely free trade..."

Don, so you are giving up tenure.

Congratulations on your liberation.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Mar 13, 2008 11:26:23 AM

After all, business leaders have been making such claims since the time of anti-trust legislation.

Specific question for muirgeo:

Which interests originally called for anti-trust legislation?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 13, 2008 11:28:00 AM

John Dewey,

I am afraid it is more typical then you imagine. You may have in mind the business founder who spent his/her whole life devoted to it and watching it grow through sweat and ingenuity, and then distrustful of the government that could take it all away with the stroke of a legislative pen.
But that isn't the whole story, there is the case of young, ambitious people who join a company and work their way to the top, through external and internal politicing, generating returns for their shareholders by cultivating relationships with the government and its agents, getting seats on regulatory commissions, being asked to help write the rules. Those people spend their whole careers learning the protectionist and legislative game and how to turn it to their advantage, but they are far too deep into it to entertain the possiblity that what their doing is problematic.

I certainly hope your right, and it is reluctant acceptance of the current order, that they are part of the system only to protect themselves. I may have the wrong perspective because I live and work in the DC area, but I think my story happens fairly often, often enough to be called typical.

Posted by: scott clark | Mar 13, 2008 11:57:58 AM

Case in point. I've been watching CNBC in the background this morning, and lots of execs of big companies (example: GE) are at an environmental confab somewhere with a really pretty beach in the background calling for Congress to implement cap & trade on carbon output so the companies will have a more predictable handle on the future cost of carbon emissions. Coincidentally, GE expects to do $25B in sales in FY2010 from its so-called "green" products. Lock in your sales with laws, right?

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 13, 2008 12:25:00 PM

John Dewey,

I think Scott makes an important point. The government creates economic rent which businessmen would be stupid not to seek. In light of the growing government intervention in the economy, it's hard to believe that that rent-seeking behaviour isn't common and won't become even more widespread.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 13, 2008 12:29:06 PM

scott clark,

I may have a different perspective because I have not spent a minute working in DC. Over the past 35 years I've worked with executives in California, Texas, Tennessee, and Missouri. I've also done business with business managers in about a half dozen other states. I truly believe most business leaders - outside of the defense industry - would prefer this crap to go away.

Don't think because business leaders play the game that means they endorse it. The power of Washington and of our state governments forces them to play along. The problem is with the politicians and the government bureaucracy, not with the business leaders. The latter can survive without government protection and handouts. The former depends on it for their livelihood.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 12:33:18 PM

methinks: "In light of the growing government intervention in the economy, it's hard to believe that that rent-seeking behaviour isn't common and won't become even more widespread."

Perhaps you missed my statement from 10:44 this morning:

"When politicians are handing out favors right and left, any executive would be shirking his responsibility by (not) trying to obtain his share."

My point was that the reaction Don implied - that executives DESIRE to use government to protect them - is inaccurate. Rather, they are FORCED to do so by the power of politicians.

Again, don't blame the business leaders who are bound by law to represent the interests of shareholders. Blame the damned politicians who are supposed to be representing the interests of taxpayers.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 12:40:10 PM

Proudly wear the label "Shill for Freedom".

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 12:53:28 PM

The guy who wrote that column should be called "shill for economic slavery and lowest common denominator".

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 12:55:07 PM

John Dewey:

It's only human nature to want to protect your piece of the pie. The idea that captain of industry would be for unfettered free markets strikes of saintly-hood that they've not earned.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 12:56:58 PM

The only TRUE free-marketeers are small businessmen who have only to gain. Once they become large businessmen, suddenly they're in the protection racket. Free market theory and practice are different things.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 12:59:42 PM

feedomlover: "It's only human nature to want to protect your piece of the pie. "

Many more business leaders than you can imagine do play within the rules. The problem is not the business executives who are bound by law to protect the owners' interests. The problem is the rulemakers to whom we've given too much power.

Do I believe that all business leaders are saints? Of course not. But my view of teh relationship between businessmen and politicians is similar to that expressed by Thomas Sowell:

"Such is the moral fiber of our elected officials, whose purity we are trying to save from corruption by outside interests that make campaign contributions. It never seems to occur to many in the media that perhaps it is the politicians who are already corrupt and who demand tribute from businesses and others in the form of campaign contributions. "

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 1:15:30 PM

"...the most influential economists in the world are the George Mason economists...

I'll toast to that! Congratulations!

I think of you guys as the "New Chicago" or the "Next Chicago". Which do you like best?

Keep up the great work.

Tom

Posted by: Tom | Mar 13, 2008 1:16:06 PM

Save_the_rustbelt:

You'd have a case if you suggested that Dr. Bourdreaux push for academic "fair trade". After all, lots of places (like my own country) subsidise research and education by tremendous margins. In fact, some might say that academics here are public servants. How can American research compete in such an unfair environment? Perhaps a ban on citation of European and Canadian papers would help balance the trade? Definately restrictions on use of unfairly trained and protected forgein teachers is in order. After all, how can learning hope to survive with the odds stacked so unfavourably against poor American institutions?

Posted by: Gamut | Mar 13, 2008 1:40:03 PM

Gamut,

That's an interesting point, but I question the assumption that making researchers public servants is an advantage. They may get more money, but they also have to deal with the buracracy. Nor am I sold on the idea that subsidized education is an advantage - for the same reason.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 13, 2008 1:53:10 PM

Randy:

Large pharmas have their own bureaucracy. The nature of any large corporate beast.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 2:03:31 PM

"Accuse them of doing what you do, curse them for being what you are."
-----Lenin

The Leftists continue to follow the master's strategy. To counter them we must unveil their farce.

Dan Klein did this when he wrote about Paul Krugman in Econjournalwatch.org. He unmasked a malicious, dishonest "scholar" with an exhaustive analysis of ALL of Krugman's articles and proved that the NYT columnist has a parallel agenda.

Now, who is this undergroundman who hides behind his "Notes"? Dostoevsky already had him pegged:

"I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease."

Well, the GMU docs understand your disease well. Listen to them and you will one day emerge out of the underground to see the light, and perhaps rid yourself of the blinding sickness called Leftism.

Posted by: Fabio Franco | Mar 13, 2008 3:49:52 PM

John Dewey,

I did read your 10:44 post. We agree on the cause. I only meant that I think that once politics warps the environment and changes incentives, the way people think about business in general also changes. In addition to politics, I think human nature also leads us to believe that our business is somehow unique and deserves special treatment. Failures are blamed not on poor execution or pure dumb luck but on some "flaw" in the competitive system which only government can fix. This thinking is then passed on to the next generation of business "leaders".

Incidentally, I have run several of my own businesses, most in highly regulated environments, and I would love to sink or swim without the interference of government. However, in my experience, this attitude seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Then again, our different observations may be due to the fact that I'm in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York and you're in Texas :)

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 13, 2008 4:18:46 PM

methinks: "I'm in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York and you're in Texas"

Oh, yeah. Worlds apart.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 4:56:30 PM

Methinks:

So how many more permits do you need for the business you had in NY vs TX? Just wanting to quantify this. Obviously NY has much higher tax rates.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 5:09:42 PM

My impressions of Texan's attitudes compated to New Yorkers' were formed in the days when I had to visit a lot during my oil days. I never lived there. So, my impressions may not totally reflect reality .

I don't know about the permits, Freedomlover. My current regulating body is Federal, so I would be equally effected everywhere in the country. My point is that attitudes here are so favourable to regulation than the seem to be in Texas.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 13, 2008 5:20:00 PM

Methinks:

I've been reading lately that Texas is trending purple in the next 10 years and will be a solidly blue state in 20.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 5:23:45 PM

If industry were interested in having a free market, the LP would've won decades ago.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 13, 2008 6:11:36 PM

Freedomlover,

Please show evidence of Texas' move to the Democrat side in 20 years. I'd love to see the analysis.

Posted by: Python | Mar 13, 2008 7:16:42 PM

Freedomlover, we're bright red over here with Hillary painting a hammer and sickle on the state seal. It's all relative.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 13, 2008 7:25:39 PM

same grove: "If industry were interested in having a free market, the LP would've won decades ago."

If the LP were only interested in free markets - and if only industry executives and entrepreneurs could vote - perhaps the LP might have succeeded.

Industry executives I've known, with a few exceptions, are among the most conservative of all Americans. Many such men - and women - would be troubled by these LP positions:

- elimination of all drug laws;
- elimination of pornography laws;
- legalization of gay marriage;
- adoption rights for gay couples;
- legalization of prostitution;
- open immigration;
- sale and privatization of public parks, highways, and dams.

You may view all of these as free market issues. But to the conservative executives I've known, these issues are radically different from steel tariffs, consumer product standards, and medical licensing.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 13, 2008 7:48:56 PM

John, it's a bit of a joke about libertarians being pro-corporation.

Progressives suppose that these corporate executives are ONLY interested in making money and are not motivated by any ideology.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 13, 2008 8:47:57 PM

- legalization of gay marriage;

I do not have a problem with gay marriage. But I do see where a new definition of marriage may potentially lead. If same-sex couple would be allowed to be formally married -- and be eligible to survivor benefits under the Social Security system as it is in place now -- then what is to stop children from marrying their terminal ill parents to keep the benifits flowing? "Rediculous!", you say; perhaps. But if marriage is to no longer retain its traditional meaning, expect the slippery sloped laywers to fight for anything that any potential new legislation does not specifically prohibit.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 13, 2008 8:48:08 PM

Don,

You and your crew have done more to enlighten folks from all over the world free of charge than just about anyone else of this God forsaken marble.

Free, that's right free for you and me. They give of their time for our benefit.

Special mention goes out to Arnold Kling's site (I know it's not "his" but you know what I mean) and Econobrowser.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: babinich | Mar 13, 2008 8:57:46 PM

I definitely agree. Though the amount of work that I don't get done while I read all these comments does carry a hefty price tag. Thank you, and curse you for being so engaging all the time.

Posted by: Gamut | Mar 13, 2008 9:05:19 PM

I'm a little-L libertarian. I say YES to anarcho-capitalism now!

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 13, 2008 9:49:47 PM

Not the mention the LP was knee deep when it revealed its Rothbardian policy on children. I can't help this was parodied in Simpsons Halloween episode 11 part 2.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 13, 2008 9:55:49 PM

LowcountryJoe I have no problem with gay marriage at all, but marriage should be a religious/cultural ceremony and private contract. Government should not regulate marriage. For government, regulating marriage is their way of combining incomes that are subject to higher marginal rates.

Posted by: mcwop | Mar 13, 2008 11:25:43 PM

Are there not two kinds of economists; those that advise the government how to manage things and those that advise government to lay off?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 14, 2008 1:22:12 AM

No restraints on selling defense related items to China?

Posted by: Kent Gatewood | Mar 14, 2008 1:46:51 AM

I just wish someone would go through the logic of the HO model with this kid and show him that Marxism was mathematically disproved long ago. Capital and Labor can have the same interests depending on the resource allocation.

Posted by: Richard Pointer | Mar 14, 2008 1:51:55 AM

Has anyone ever done some rigorous work in delineating the amount of corporate welfare versus the amount of human welfare in the U.S. budget? And isn't the argument for both strands of welfare made in terms of the recipient's 'helplessness' in the face of more powerful, competing, and uncaring forces? If this is true, then isn't all welfare the manifestation of a determinist's world-view, one which finds itself even in the 'Comments' section of 'Cafe Hayek'?

Posted by: a Duoist | Mar 14, 2008 2:08:55 AM

Duoist:

It's all in the name of "compassion". As if evolution cares for such a thing. The more welfare we do, the more we hinder our own natural progress.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 14, 2008 3:07:42 AM

No restraints on selling defense related items to China?

Selling major weapons systems to a country like China -- a country that postures violence on its neigbors from time to time -- is probably not a good idea. But then companies that already have lucrative defense contracts with the Pentagon (and the Armed Forces Appropriators in congress who secure the budgetary monies) would likely not want to do any selling to countries that fit that kind of template for fear that the gravy-train of garaunteed contract revnue would vanish.

Then again, our Federal government sells surplus F-16s to Pakistan even though they and India posture violence on each other from time to time. Does an F-16 qualify as a major weapon system that shouldn't be traded? By itself, it is not a weapon; it is just a means of delivering weapons and taking out other delivery systems.

Isn't it interesting, though, that the last line of defense for a protectionist to use is defense and security issues. Because once that loophole has been established as the sole remaining impediment to free trade, everything that can be traded suddenly becomes tied to national interests, security, and defense. It is the vicious little loophole that keeps breeding more loopholes.

Side questions: does anyone here really believe that nuclear weapons can ever be containeed to just the governments that have them now? What is the total cost of containment and the associated enforcement costs of containing these types of weapons? Is the cost worth it? Are the United States excessively burdened with this cost? Would an expanded United States -- through aggressive campaining (advertising) of our openess; using Article IV sections 3 & 4 of our constitution -- be more effective at world peace than say the United Nations would be? I know that this is crazy talk but you all knew that someone would fill the Duck's void!

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 14, 2008 9:15:10 AM

Gamut:

Don and me have had some "friendly" jousting over this issue for awhile.

I actually think the "real Don" as opposed to the "blogger Don" knows that there is no such thing, in a complex world, as absolute free trade. He probably doesn't like that, but he knows it. When his own self-interest is in play, he likes being in a powerful "craft guild" that largely protects him from competition.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Mar 14, 2008 9:16:36 AM

joe:

Radical Islamic terrorists with nukes ARE dangerous. They have no economic incentives not to use them.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 14, 2008 10:25:31 AM

rustbelt: "When his own self-interest is in play, he likes being in a powerful "craft guild" that largely protects him from competition."

How do you know this? Professor Boudreaux doesn't claim to know what save-the-rustbelt likes or dislikes, does he? How can you make that claim?

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 14, 2008 10:29:06 AM

Last I heard, tenure is something that has to be earned. It is a reward that promotes competition. That is, its not the same at all as paying politicians for protection from competition.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 14, 2008 11:49:56 AM

John:

rustbelt seems to think everything revolves around him. He's still in the infancy stage.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 14, 2008 11:53:39 AM

Given the recent bailout of Bear Sterns by the Fed, I find the timing of this post to be impeccable. Had markets been allowed to operate without the intervention of the government, it appears that Bear Stearns would have not been able to meet its liquidity needs and gone under.

While I realize the post was primarily about how protectionism helps big business and hinders competition, it seems obvious that a connection of government intervention and the advantages it presents to “industry leaders” can be made.

Posted by: ZinOH | Mar 14, 2008 12:21:54 PM

OMG, this Bear Stearns thing so plays into muirduck. I should have him know I do not approve of this kind of stuff.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 14, 2008 12:57:25 PM

I fully support the free market and free trade mindset promoted here.

However, as a fan of Hayek, I find the lack of criticism on this site of the Feds actions over the last few years a glaring injustice to Hayek. He would have opposed these moral hazard and artificially cheap money policies in a heartbeat. And that appears to be the most consequential economic question of our time.

Posted by: Spectator | Mar 14, 2008 5:33:49 PM

I find the lack of criticism on this site of the Feds actions over the last few years a glaring injustice to Hayek.

The professors have largely avoided the topic but we've discussed it in the comment section, Spectator.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 14, 2008 9:49:40 PM

Spectator,

Here, here! That's been a big issue for me as well. The funny thing is with the system as it is it's a tuff call not to bail them out. The ripple effects on the economy would be dramatic. My point is that we need to have very strict laws and good oversight of the banks who are allowed access and privilege to treasury funds and federal insurance. We should never have arrived at this point in the first place and it's all a result of poor oversight and deregulation of the finance and banking industry.

And there are plenty here who avidly do not want to pay for public health care but seem mum about the dollars they pay into corporate welfare. I simply do not get it.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 1:05:08 AM

Murthaduck,

For the record, I'M OPPOSED TO CORPORATE WELFARE! I hope that was loud enough to penetrate your skull. Would you please point out anyone here who is opposed to totalitarian medicine (HT: Sam) but IS in favor of corporate welfare?

This a simple yes or no answer for you, so I'll assume you'll duck it, but here goes, anyway. Do you favor subsidies for alternative energies such as ethanol or wind turbines? Yes or no?

Posted by: brotio | Mar 15, 2008 2:32:43 AM

Brotio,

Yes, I am for subsidies for alternative energy.

That is consistent with my opinion that government can and must be involved in managing and stimulating the economy.

I believe the Fed has a role in stabilizing the economy and monetary policy. Unfortunately the regulated have taken over the regulatory role as always happens.

Bro what pisses me off is these guys in the banking industry who claim to be for free markets when they are ripping people off and taking all kinds of risk with other peoples money but then come crying to the government for help when they over extend. We see the same thing happen over and over and its a major way the Robber Barons take wealth out of the economy from those who really worked for. I'm not a lefty arguing for welfare. I am arguing for hard working people to get a fair shake in the productivity gains they helped create.

The bottom line for me is this whole fiasco we see playing out in the banking and finance market is an obvious argument for greater and better oversight. It does not support the idea that deregulation is always better. But what happens is wealthy bankers often become Fed workers and they rig the system in their favor.

For people here who claim to be against corporate welfare to be consistent with the idea would be to be against these federal bail outs with implications involving massive financial instability and dealing with another depression.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 8:10:52 AM

Listening to CSPAN that has the former Monetary Affairs Director at the Federal Reserve, Vincent Reinhart now a shill at the AIE. Caller after caller are making the same comments as I make here about the American worker taking all the risk for these banks.

One caller had a great point that our fiat money system is based on trust. That trust is ultimately backed by the American worker and that trust was broken by the actions of very wealthy people who run our banking institutions.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 8:28:43 AM

"Wow. Talk about missing Arnold's point. And to discount the value of intuition of someone trained in the field and successful applying his knowledge outside academia. Amazing.

You guys ought to embrace the label though. Proudly call yourselves "shills for industriousness".

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 13, 2008 10:27:43 AM"

Brad,

I am curious, how does one train in the field of intuition? And, while most of us acknowledge that intuition exists, how does one apply that "knowledge" of intuition outside of acedemia or even inside it for that matter?

Or, perhaps you didn't really say what you meant to say?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 15, 2008 12:06:34 PM

result of poor oversight and deregulation of the finance and banking industry

Clueless.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 15, 2008 12:35:10 PM

Yes, I am for subsidies for alternative energy.

We knew that. It's rooted in the clueless nature of 'progressive' ideology.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 15, 2008 3:11:20 PM

"Yes, I am for subsidies for alternative energy."

Muirgeo (I'll be nice. You answered a direct question directly. Congratulations.)

Those subsidies go to corporations like Archer Daniels Midland so that they can sell ethanol for $2.50 a gallon and make a profit. Without the subsidies, the price of ethanol would have to be somewhere over $4 a gallon for ADM to make a profit.

So, who is for corporate welfare and who is not? You bitched about this blog being "silent about corporate welfare". Well, while there was no one arguing in favor of it, there wasn't much to talk about. Now that you have come out in favor of corporate welfare, perhaps people won't be so silent any more.

It sounds to me like you're all for corporate welfare as long as the "right" corporations get the welfare.

Posted by: brotio | Mar 15, 2008 11:46:06 PM

Brotio,

You have to add in the factor that the only reason that ADM is receiving that subsidy is because of the envirowhackos of the left insisting that we use ethanol in the first place.

As I have said in the past, think of a social ill or problem and the cause today can virtually always be laid at the door of the left.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 16, 2008 10:37:11 AM

That's because their perception of the economy is quite superficial. They perceive little of the complexity and they persist in conceiving of any mass of people as so much cattle to be managed according to their whims.
Little would be Stalins/Lenins all.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 11:37:00 AM

HT: Vidyohs

Posted by: brotio | Mar 16, 2008 10:00:14 PM

Here is my reply to your post. It can be summarized in a few short points:

1) You assume that shill must fit all those conditions. It doesn't have to. You are an apologist for industry harms: Enron, Superfund sites, global warming, short-termism, ect. If you do not outright applaud these things, you certainly do not make them the issue that they should be.

2) Efficient corporations benefit from free trade. That's why we've had free trade agreements passed. The significant industries getting tariff breaks these days are steel and farming/ethanol -- these are inefficient industries. These days, corporations like free trade.

3) It's not so simple as government bad, industry good. Government laid the foundation for the Internet, created the road network, strung electricity across the country, and created the SEC, which enabled many ordinary citizens to invest without being easily scammed.

See my post on national databases for my ideas on how to improve government.

Posted by: undergroundman | Mar 16, 2008 11:58:43 PM

It's not so simple as government bad, industry good. Government laid the foundation for the Internet

Straw man.

No one here says 'industry', which I take you to mean the complex of business interests extant today, is categorically 'good'. Such complex of actors must be viewed impartially and various actors judged by their behaviors.

What we are saying is that when government is appointed to intervene in the market in the various ways promoted by 'progressives', incentives are thereby created which attract those actors from their task of making profits via productive activity and toward influencing the government intervention on their own behalf at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

'Good' government is that which is restricted from any 'special' interventions into society which inevitably create those perverse incentives.

We recall, in answer to the question that muirgeo never bothered to answer, despite my twice extending an invitation, the origanal calls for government intervention which led to anti-trust legislation came from...industry. Specifically existing petroleum companies that were being out-competed by Standard Oil.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 12:32:45 PM

phhht!
"original"

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 12:34:26 PM

It's interesting that you don't bother to cite your assertion that industry was the first to call for regulation of industry. I'd like to see an unbiased source on that.

You may not say that industry is categorically good (after all, that would be foolish), but you do essentially say that government is categorically bad. Indeed, you just reiterated that statement, which flies in the face of the historical accomplishments which I cited: the internet, the road network, the electrical network, and plenty of others.

I agree that government can be co-opted, but I think there are ways to check that co-option. Also, it's clear that you have a much too rosy picture of industry -- you can't attribute the environmental harms of today to industry. And business is too cutthroat for industry to change itself and stop environmental destruction without regulation which requires all businesses to treat the environmental well, and look out for the long-term interests of the planet (global warming).

Why can't industry address environmental harms by itself? Because being environmentally friendly likely costs more. Thus, the less environmentally friendly corporations will undercut them.

You might reply that the root of the problem is consumers. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Most Americans aren't up to date enough on the science, and aren't forward-looking enough to make the decision on their own. Thus, government needs to step in and mandate things.

Look at Don's little paper on externalities here. In it he states (without a citation) that "prior to the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1970 which largely substituted bureaucratic regulation for the private property rights that previously governed uses of inland waters the extent of water pollution in the United States was surprisingly modest and under control. American rivers and streams were emphatically not filthy dumping grounds."

Does that make sense theoretically? Not really. Today we can look at nations which have few regulations to see whether this trange phenemonen takes place -- and curiously, it doesn't in China and other developing nations.

Posted by: undergroundman | Mar 17, 2008 3:06:41 PM

It's interesting that you don't bother to cite your assertion that industry was the first to call for regulation of industry. I'd like to see an unbiased source on that.

The information I read in pre-internet days in a policy report from CATO which I no longer possess. I assume the information is still available somewhere.

I am unaware of any unbiased source of pretty much anything. Are you aware of such?

but you do essentially say that government is categorically bad

If you go to what I said, you'll see that I said something different from what you essentially claim.

the internet, the road network, the electrical network, and plenty of others.

This assumes without any justification that, sans government involvement, there would never have been any internet. You are aware, I'm sure that the essentials of computing were known for sometime. That electronics were born in the private sector. That the transistor was a product of Bell labs. That scientists and engineers are, by nature, tinkerers and innovators. That things like flight developed in the private sector. etc.

To suppose that, because some useful development happened to take place under some auspice of government, therefore it could only have taken place under some government auspice, is an unsupportable argument.

Pollution. In Ireland, the inland waterways are considered private property. They are in exquisite condition. Downstream property owners do not tolerate pollution.

Much of the pollution of the past century was caused by government(s). Municipal waste was often discharge into waterways. Military bases contain many toxic sites.

By establishing maximum levels, government permits pollution beneath those levels.

An early pollution (a railroad vs an orchard grower) case was judged in favor of the polluter by a government court.
_____________________________________

And you sound just like muirgeo who has dragged us over these very subjects on multiple occasions.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 3:51:23 PM

IAC, dealing with commons pollution is not a case of 'special' intervention of which I was speaking in the earlier post. So, straw man.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 4:12:09 PM

Well now, Mr. undergroundman,

"1) You assume that shill must fit all those conditions. It doesn't have to. You are an apologist for industry harms: Enron, Superfund sites, global warming, short-termism, ect. If you do not outright applaud these things, you certainly do not make them the issue that they should be.

See my post on national databases for my ideas on how to improve government.

Posted by: undergroundman | Mar 16, 2008 11:58:43 PM"

You assume an unjustified elitest attitude considering the quality of your arguments put forth.

The military had a model for the internet, but I know it is entirely erroneous to state that the government developed the internet. Last I knew it happened over commercial telephones lines through cooperative efforts of private genius. To this day government can't even regulate it.

I certainly know from history that all across America road net works existed long before governments got around to improving them and pressing regulation on them.

I can't think of a single government power generation company ever in the history of our nation, today or in the yesteryear, much less one that strung electricity lines across America. That was all done by private enterprise. People didn't get electricity until it became profitable in the eyes of the power companies to string the lines and offer the service. Nothing happened at government impetus or dictation.

The same with telephone service.

Many ordinary people invested with great profit and security before the SEC, and they did so because they took the time to study, learn, and understand the stock market so that they recognized a scammer and stayed clear of him. That they no longer can is not a condemnation of private enterprise but of government controled schools graduating idiots like muirduck.

Your entire 2) above is as muddled in logic as anything muirduck has ever said. After reading it I am sure that you haven't any more clue as to what free trade is than muirduck does.
-------

""You might reply that the root of the problem is consumers. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Most Americans aren't up to date enough on the science, and aren't forward-looking enough to make the decision on their own. Thus, government needs to step in and mandate things.
Posted by: undergroundman | Mar 17, 2008 3:06:41 PM""

Most Americans aren't up to date enough on the science and aren't.......Thus the government needs to step in and mandate things. Wheeeeew!

Let's see, the federal government seizes control of the schools beginning with the FDR administration, dumbs down the American public in shitty schools, thus the government now needs to step in and mandates things because the people are too ignorant to understand what the elties know. Appears to me that the government has created the mess you are now willing to fearlessly allow them to fix.

Isn't that a little like saying: Thus the government, hating competition in the thieving screwing wasting ruining squandering game, has to step in and mandate to private industry?

Given the intellectual level and dishonesty of your post here, undergroundman, why in the name of God would I, or anyone, waste their time reading your solutions to our problems? Oh, ok maybe for amusement.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 6:20:01 PM