- Understanding Trump’s trade mistakes
- Empiricism and humility
- Epistemological modesty and unintended consequences
- Immigrants and slaves
- 5 takeaways from the Dutch election
Hope y’all like the new layout of the blog. Take a few minutes to get comfortable. Take off your coat, your shoes and your troubles. Now have a glass of red wine and a look around.
- IRS specifically targets conservative Tea Party groups; So the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein naturally defends the IRS for not doing more: Listen to the fascists sing
- Ken White has an update on the man who made the anti-Islamic film “The Innocence of Muslims”
- Dear life (gun control and gun violence). Again and again: gun violence has been declining for about two decades now.
- The Crushing of Middle Eastern Christianity
- A Brutal Peace: the Postwar Expulsion of the Germans
- Barack the buck-passer. A laudatory account of Obama’s foreign policy that I largely agree with.
The question, “Is capitalism moral?” was raised by Steven Pearlstein in a 15 March 2013 article in the Washington Post. He is a professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University and a column writer for the Washington Post.
Pearlstein writes that we in the US are engaged in a “historic debate over free-market capitalism.” Maybe so, but “free-market capitalism” is a contradiction in terms. There are two reasons why the economic system is called “capital”ism rather than “laborism” or “landism.” First is that capital dominates labor. The second reason to call the system “capitalism” is to hide the role of land, so that people focus only on the conflict between workers and capitalists. The chiefs of finance and real estate are able to dominate because of their political clout. They obtain privileges from government in subsidies, limits on competition, and periodic bail outs. In contrast, in a free market, there is no domination, with neither subsidies nor imposed costs.
Pearlstein then says that if “markets” were providing prosperity for most folks, there would be no need for governmental intervention. But we don’t have pure markets. We have a mixed economy, with intervention into markets, so one has to first analyze whether it is markets or else interventions that cause high inequality, instability, poverty, and unemployment. Since pure markets are not given an opportunity to work, how can they be responsible for economic woes?
He then asserts that for the past 30 years, the world has been moving towards a greater role for markets. That is so for China and the countries previously dominated by the USSR, and these economies have indeed experienced greater growth and prosperity.
But, contrary to Pearlstein’s assertion, the US has been moving away from a market economy. Frequent governmental crises – the fiscal cliff, budget deadlines, ever changing tax rates – threaten the stability of financial, industrial, and labor markets. The subsidies to real estate and its financial allies have never been greater. The domination of the Federal Reserve over money, banking, and interest rates has reached historic heights. The tax reforms of the 1980s have been reversed by Congress, which has made income taxes ever more complex. Costly regulations continue to pour out of Washington DC by the thousands each year. And now the government will dominate medical provision like never before.
The decline in the role of markets can be measured by an index of economic freedom. According to the Fraser Index of Economic Freedom, U.S. market freedom peaked out in the year 2000 at a rating of 8.5 out of 10, and then declined to 7.69 in 2010 as intervention grew. The US freedom ranking among countries dropped from third place in 2000 to 18th out of 144 in 2010, and most probably has continued sinking since then.
Critics of markets have asserted that stagnant household incomes and financial crises are the fault of a greater role for markets, when in fact, in the US and Europe, massive subsidies to real estate caused the recession, excessive government borrowing has caused the fiscal crises, and a governmental redistribution of wealth from workers to landowners has stagnated net wages.
I agree with Pearlstein that we should welcome the debate on economic morality. But we should use words that have real economic meaning, rather than propaganda terms. Any person who refers to “capitalism” other than with critical quotation marks contributes to the confusion. The critics of markets opportunistically use the term “free market” to refer to the mixed economy, and then use the term “capitalism” also for the concept of a pure free market. Hence they argue that “capitalism,” as the mixed economy, suffers from economic woes, and then jump to the false conclusion that “capitalism,” meaning the pure market, causes the problems.
A real debate should also unmask the role of land that hides under the label “capital”ism. Critics who speak of the “market’s” unequal distributions overlook the massive redistribution of income from workers to landowners, as taxes on wages pay for public goods that pump up rent and land values. Their call for higher taxes on the rich disregards the distinction between earned income from entrepreneurship and unearned income from governmental subsidies.
Pearlstein admits that “many of the arguments have been a bit flabby, with both sides taking refuge in easy moralizing.” That is true. An honest and robust debate should avoid the deceitful switching of meanings for “capitalism”, and indeed avoids using the flabby term altogether. Instead, use the clear and honest words “pure market,” “intervention,” and “mixed economy.” If we say that the mixed economy has economic woes, one cannot then conclude that the pure market has caused them, because the mix also includes intervention. Clear thinking about economic morality cannot begin until we have clear terms that reflect the full-spectrum of economic reality.