Tyler at Marginal Revolution mentions this fascinating list of "dangerous ideas." Tyler does not, though, single out my favorite one; it’s by Skeptic magazine’s Michael Shermer.
Here the link (you’ll have to scroll down a bit); and here, below, is Shermer’s entire idea.
Where goods cross frontiers, armies
won’t
Where goods cross frontiers, armies won’t. Restated: where economic borders are porous between two nations, political borders become impervious to armies.
Data from the new sciences of evolutionary economics, behavioral economics, and neuroeconomics reveals that when people are free to cooperate and trade (such as in game theory protocols) they establish trust that is reinforced through neural pathways that release such bonding hormones as oxytocin. Thus, modern biology reveals that where people are free to cooperate and trade they are less likely to fight and kill those with whom they are cooperating and trading.
My dangerous idea is a solution to what I call the "really hard problem": how best should we live? My answer: A free society, defined as free-market
economics and democratic politics — fiscal conservatism and social liberalism — which leads to the greatest liberty for the greatest number. Since humans are, by nature, tribal, the overall goal is to expand the concept of the tribe to include all members of the species into a global free society. Free trade between all peoples is the surest way to reach this goal.
People have a hard time accepting free market economics for the same reason they have a hard time accepting evolution: it is counterintuitive. Life looks intelligently designed, so our natural inclination is to infer that there
must be an intelligent designer — a God. Similarly, the economy looks designed, so our natural inclination is to infer that we need a designer — a Government. In fact, emergence and complexity theory explains how the principles of self-organization and emergence cause complex systems to arise from simple systems without a top-down designer.
Charles Darwin’s natural selection is Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of individual competition among organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of individual competition among people. Nature’s economy mirrors society’s economy. Thus, integrating evolution and economics — what I call evonomics — reveals that an old economic doctrine is supported by modern biology.
(Hat tip to Steve Davies.)
Addendum: My colleague Kevin McCabe writes to me (in an e-mail) the following after having read Shermer’s post:
Actually, the link between
oxytocin and trust is less clear. Oxytocin seems to be more related to
social approach behaviors and less linked to response behavior. I
think a better link is between market integration and trust. With
increased trading opportunities why engage in mutually costly behaviors
when you can trade? Dan [Houser] and I and Maria Paganelli are designing
experiments to test this. Kevin.
And a well-respected psychologist friend calls Shermer’s intepretation of the oxytocin results "breathtaking" — by which I don’t think he means "amazingly brilliant"!
So while I remain quite convinced that our human natures are such that we generally flourish best when free — including economically free — those of us who aren’t professional biologists, psychologists, or neuroeconomists should remain humble in whatever use we make of these disciplines.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 29 comments }
Unfortunately, this is the dissenting view. More than 1 interviewee was quick to point to freedom as the number one culprit of today's world.
Maybe, but this free-market world of cooperators may lead us to a world consumed with triviality, which would be in direct conflict with the people described at the end of Tyler's post by Geoffrey Miller:
Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism activists, already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our Creative-Class dream-worlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness-faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will inherit the earth, as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other planets. When they finally achieve Contact, it will not be a meeting of novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in a sacred nursery.
So what say you to the possibility that the path you advocate will lead us to amusing human life to death? Where do you stand on "fitness-faking narcissism?"
"Where do you stand on "fitness-faking narcissism?""
It's nonsense. Any explanation that relies on a uniform result for all possible intelligent species is clearly nonsense.
nmg
Actually, Hernando de Soto made similar points about free market capitalism being a "state of nature" phenomenon in his "Mystery of Capitalism". In this book, he dedicates a whole chapter to the story of how property rights arose in the wild west. In doing so, he accidentally makes a strong case for anarcho-capitalism.
Of course, all that is left of the old west in the popular romanticized image is one of vigilantism, crime, chaos, and danger. While certainly these effects were present, a notable contemporary source of them was absent–the government itself.
That article really shows why economists shouldn't mess about with analogies.
It's really stupid to compare the free market with natural selection as an argument in its defense. The main processes of natural selection are death, disease, and the denial of basic resources to the most disadvantaged. The logical extension of that analogy is either: "since we try to control evolution by pharmaceuticals and medical advances, so should we control the market to artificially protect the weakest" – OR "we should let the free market take its natural course, and accept that it will cause some to be disadvantaged and ruined" and the so progressive ideas of Thomas Malthus.
Now I'm not saying that that would be the effect of a free market – I have no idea since the free market is wholly theoretical. But why do economists find it so difficult to put forward sound arguments in its favour, and rely so frequently on flawed analogies to argue their case instead?
Holy shit – I seem to be almost agreeing with Don Boudreaux.
"It's really stupid to compare the free market with natural selection as an argument in its defense. The main processes of natural selection are death, disease, and the denial of basic resources to the most disadvantaged."
Yes — I don't really see how "Charles Darwin's natural selection is Adam Smith's invisible hand" formulation differs from 19th century 'social darwinism'. This is 'dangerous defense' of market captitalism, I'm afraid.
The analogy seems useeful to me. Order emerges in both biology and economics from mechanisms that do not require "central planning".
Tom,
Re; "But why do economists find it so difficult to put forward sound arguments in its favour…"
I don't think it is true that economists find it difficult to put forward sound arguments in favour of the free market. There is one basic argument. It creates wealth. End of story.
The thing that economists have difficulty with is defending the free market against the accusation that it doesn't create equal wealth, or even minimial wealth, for all. The defense is simple. This isn't the responsibility of the free market. This is the responsibility of socio-political organizations – and it is they who are failing. Indeed, one of the primary ways in which socio-political organizations fail is in believing that the free market is capable of creating equal and/or minimal wealth for all. Their intrusions in the free market very often hurt most the very people they say they want to help. Economists often fail in convincing these idealists that their efforts are misguided, because they simply don't want to believe it.
"Since humans are, by nature, tribal, the overall goal is to expand the concept of the tribe to include all members of the species into a global free society."
I think that Shermer overestimates the scalability of "tribe" if this is to be the glue that binds the free market together. There must be some other bonding force that allows peaceful exchange between disparate groups with, perhaps, incompatible internal mechanisms.
Perhaps he can come up with some sort of trans-membrane analogy that will fit.
How about "Capitalist collagen" ?
Randy -
Well, perhaps it was an entirely appropriate analogy, and the logical extension of it for the free-marketeers is
in fact "… and therefore it is only fitting that the poor don't have good access to health care/ food/ water".
But surely economists – such as Don Boudreaux – argue repeatedly that the free market DOES advantage all? Isn't that the whole notion of comparative advantage?
It seems to me that the logical extension of your argument is either that (a) the free market is not necessarily the best economic system by which to enrich everybody, or (b) socio-political organizations need to improve their interference in the free market to better create a minimum wealth?
Tom,
I'll let Don speak for himself, but yes, I have seen many economists fail to draw the line between the responsibilities of the market and of the socio-political structures. Not that I blame them. It is not a distinction that is commonly drawn.
Re; Logical extensions.
"(a) the free market is not necessarily the best economic system by which to enrich everybody"
The free market is not only the best economic system, it is in fact the only economic system. Only the free market actually creates wealth. All other systems are in fact socio-political systems and must draw on the wealth created by the free market to perform their functions.
"(b) socio-political organizations need to improve their interference in the free market to better create a minimum wealth"
"Improve their interference" is just about right. Socio-political organizations need to understand their relationship to the free market. They are dependant. They can "improve" by understanding that their objectives will be more rapidly achieved by working with the free market, rather than against it. Like a good farmer, who knows not to eat the seedcorn.
Randy,
I'm quite perplexed by your logic.
I'm not opposed per se to the free market. What I want is an economic system that will ensure everyone has an acceptable level of wealth for the basics: food, water, shelter and medicine. These are my "objectives". If the free market is the best way to provide this, then I will happily declare myself in favour of it. But I have to be convinced.
Your line of reasoning, to piece your posts together, appears to be: "Rhinos are scary. A rodent infestation is best kept under control by a rhino. However, pest control experts have difficulty defending how a rhino can scare rodents. The defense is simple: it is not a rhino's responsibility. It is a cat's responsibility. The rodent infestation would therefore be more rapidly cured if the cat let the rhino get on with it."
Now I appreciate the irony about dodgy analogies – but do you see why I find your argument illogical?
Convince me!
Here's my dangerous idea: That today's faddism of associating economics with neurotransmitters will age about as gracefully as a sailor's face over the next few decades.
Tom,
Re; "What I want is an economic system that will ensure everyone has an acceptable level of wealth for the basics…"
My point is that use of term "economic system" is misleading, because it implies that the free market and the socio-political systems are part of a whole. They are not. They are unique and separate.
The function of the free market is to create wealth. It is objective.
The function of the socio-political systems is to make the best possible use of that wealth. They are subjective.
The key to your statement is the word acceptable. If not everyone has an "acceptable" level of wealth, then the fault is in one of two places; the socio-political systems, or a utopian usage of the word acceptable. The fault is in the subjective, not the objective.
Randy,
I think my perplexion comes not from your argument, but from my initial inference that you were defending the article at the top, which IS incompatible with your logic.
If you were also disagreeing with Shermer's argumentation, then fine. My principle point is simply that it is foolish to argue in favour of free trade by comparing it to something we all explicitly agree should be controlled and subverted.
Tom,
My first comment was addressed to your question as to why economists find it so difficult to explain. To summarize, I think they find it difficult to explain because they don't bother to draw a line between the free market and the socio-political systems. Their arguments are perfectly sound to the extent that they reference the free market only. But if we start dragging in all the subjective stuff, all the "should be this" and the "deserving of that", then their statements just sound harsh and non-responsive. An objective response to a subjective argument.
But while I'm on the subject, it occurs to me that the government can be a player on both sides. That is, sometimes the government is a free market actor (creating wealth), and sometimes it is a socio-political actor (deciding how to best utilize the wealth created by the free market).
For example, if the government provides national defense as a value for value transaction, then national defense is a form of created wealth, and the government is a free market actor. The same is true for the building of infrastructure. If, however, the government simply redistributes wealth (no value for value transaction), then the government is a socio-political actor. Also, if the government uses its monopoly on power to restrict other free market actors, then it is a socio-political actor.
This has been fun, but I do see a problem. If the government can play a role on both sides, then I need a better term than socio-political. Its confusing. Maybe just plain social would work better.
… although I've diverted this thread a bit…
Randy:
Of course, democracy is an imperfect system.
Let's assume you're right then. How do you practically suggest a government – democratic or not – could ensure the rising wealth will create "prosperity for all" – and not just enrich the richest – WITHOUT interfering in the processes of the free market?
Aren't we just going back to the natural selection analogy? It's not possible to secure the survival of the "not-fittest" without interfering in evolution.
Or is the creation of wealth an end in itself, regardless of its distribution?
(That should read "a laudable end" really).
Tom,
Re; "How do you practically suggest a government – democratic or not – could ensure the rising wealth will create "prosperity for all" – and not just enrich the richest – WITHOUT interfering in the processes of the free market?"
First, "prosperity for all" is subjective. So to resolve this, we have to reach a mutual understanding of what it means. This will be difficult as the tendancy is for progressive thinkers to keep raising the bar as standards of living improve. Can we perhaps agree that the achievable goal is to provide a rising standard of living for all? Can we accept that equality beyond a minimal level is unobtainable without damaging the free market which makes a rising standard of living possible? – or more precisely, that it is simply unobtainable?
Second, "without interfering" at all is clearly not possible. I would use "minimal interfering". The idea being to use the free market as the right tool for the job. Using the free market to solve social problems is like using a screwdriver to pound in nails. The free market tool should be used to create wealth. We will however, extract a minimal amount of that wealth for social purposes.
Now, to answer your question; I can't ensure that a rising standard of living will create prosperity for all. I can only say that the available evidence seems to indicate that the free market does produce a rising standard of living for all.
As for "not just enriching the rich"; I don't see this as a problem at all. There has never been a wealthy society without a few extremely wealthy individuals. The rich are evidence of a blessing, not a curse. They are part and parcel of the free market process that creates the wealth that enables a rising standard of living.
Re; "Aren't we just going back to the natural selection analogy? It's not possible to secure the survival of the "not-fittest" without interfering in evolution."
The free market does in fact fit the analogy. And it should. We want to utilize the principle of comparitive advantage to its greatest possible effect. It is the function of the socio-political systems to provide for the less fit. If the socio-political systems use the tool of the free market to its greatest effect, they will have more resources with which to accomplish their goals.
Re; "Or is the creation of wealth an end in itself, regardless of its distribution?"
The creation of wealth is an end in itself for the free market. It is not the end for the socio-political organizations. Again, the free market is a tool they can use to achieve their ends. They should use that tool wisely. Some examples of using it unwisely; the politics of envy, failure to understand the mechanism, and utopian visions of the possibility of equality.
Continuing to assume you're right:
Let me set my subjective limit again: I'd consider "acceptable minimal prosperity" to be access to food, clean water, basic medicine and shelter – after which, "acceptable prosperity" would be "increasing prosperity". Now, as you say, this is not the goal of the free market, so we need socio-political interference – "minimal" if you will – to help achieve those goals.
So, two questions:
(a) Do you disagree with these aims for the socio-political system,
and if not:
(b) What, practically, is the bar for "minimal interference" in the free market to achieve these aims, so that it doesn't affect one group adversely while benefitting another?
Tom,
Good questions.
a. I do not disagree with these aims.
b. What is the bar? In a word, "agreement". Honestly, I think the system we have is doing a very good job. The reason I say that is because I believe that, for the most part, people "agree" with the current level of support provided, and that, for the most part, people "agree" with the level of interference in the free market. Certainly everyone has an opinion about which direction we should be going, but the democratic process has, on the whole, done a good job of reaching an effective compromise. My goal isn't to reorganize society. It is simply to clarify. But a slightly different take on "the bar", given that the system is pretty much in balance, is the idea of the Laffer curve. We may reach an agreement that the government should do "more", but if taxes are raised, less revenue may be the result. So the bar is part compromise, and part an objective limit.
Hmmm. Were we even disagreeing in the first place ?!!
Tom,
Not sure if it could be called a disagreement. Your implication was that there is something wrong with the "free market" (or the economic system known as free market). My goal was to explain why I think the "free market" (the engine that creates wealth) works just fine. Its a subtle point – but I thinks its important.
This is my first look at the site and I must say that I'm both surprised and disappointed. My surprise is at the petty level of the back-and-forth arguments over various matters but particularly on basic free trade.
It would be far better if Mr. Boudreaux would simply acknowledge the "whole truth" regarding the seemingly never-ending controversy.
The whole truth, in short form, is that Mr. Boudreaux is unequal to the task of laying out an impregnable case for free trade. For that matter, so am I. But not to worry–it's been done and quite well, by Mises in HUMAN ACTION. The bad news is that it's nearly a thousand pages of often "dense"
reading which simply cannot be thoroughly digested in a short time or even in a single reading. Though I consider myself a reasonably perceptive reader, my own relatively complete familiarity with the
entirety took a fair amount of the first 10 years (of the past 35). It just ain't easy.
But for those who can't "buy" the free trade arguments they've encountered so far, there is a distinctly easier starting place–not only easier but more enjoyable. That's Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. It should satisfy most ordinary requirements for coherence and, where doubts remain, the overwhelming logical proofs can still be sought in Mises' work.
That the free market "works"–and does so to the benefit of all participants in direct relation that such participants are contributors to the welfare of all others is the chief feature for which it is recommended to all those for whom such condition seems a worthwhile state of affairs at which to aim. But this characteristic of the free market is, at the same time, the chiefest of reasons for which it is attacked relentlessly–both in word and in deed–by all those who have already benefited by coercive arrangements advantaging themselves to the detriment of others as well as by an immense number seeking to enjoy similar favoring. It can be argued that the free market is pitiless in that each participant is obliged, if he would maximize his own ability to satisfy his economic wants, to subordinate those tastes or preferences which might differ and bend his efforts to those promising the best "payoff." Choices are not prohibited but, under market freedom, it is the chooser who must pay for his having delivered less instead of more for the satisfaction of his fellow man. In this last-mentioned respect, it is not a "perfect" system and will prove disappointing to many; but it is the only system which can possibly exist without threats and inflictions of violence becoming widespread between those seeking preeminence in one or another economic sector by means other than competitive.
Economics is the study of mens' behavior with respect to those things deemed "scarce," things for which other, similarly scarce things will be foregone; it is in everyones' interest that the most efficacious use be made of all those economized resources. Free trade achieves this goal without any other effort or "planning" other than that each person do his best FOR HIMSELF. And, conversely, each and every instance in which the direction or magnitude of those efforts and results which would have prevailed under a regime of free trade is diverted results in a diminution of overall satisfaction (despite the fact that some specific individuals' satisfactions may be enhanced by part of that diminution). Those who are pushed never fail to push back to the best of their ability; that fact underlies most of modern warfare.
With respect to Shermer's thesis, it's nothing new except for his supposition that free trade and the satisfactions engendered manage their effects by means of chemical effects on the human nervous system.
It's just plain SILLY. (Whether or not it's true or not is not at issue, in my view). First of all, and despite definite lack of precision in identifying such peace-inducing agents (oxytocin is merely mentioned as a "maybe"), no such explanation is needed to prove the superior social effects of free trade. At the very most charitable, the fact that the benefits of free trade can be deduced without resort to anything other than simple deductive logic (and completely supportable by ALL available empirical evidence) might well cause a thoughtful person to ponder what strictly biological phenomena are involved in the operation of such economic magnitudes as "value." But no amount of chemical-effect suppositions can possibly "prove" the superiority of free trade to the degree already available through the aforementioned considerations. Highly likely it is, rather, that any chemical secretions emanating from the consumption of a newly-purchased winter jacket might as well be spent on "bonding" with Wal-Mart or the spouse who bought it for you as on the workers in a Chinese factory. And, watch out! Bond with the guy in China and you might be making an enemy of the guy who looks just like him but lives in Taiwan. And, come to think of it, aren't fighting men supposed to be closely bonded with each other? Where does it all end–all this bonding?
Shermer goes further and surmises a connection between economics and evolution–he finds a similarity in their form with the specific linking element being that both achieve their result through the mechanism of competition. The idea is neither new nor even recent (nor did Shermer claim these characteristics). But again, though the idea is not silly in the same sense as that treated earlier, it is entirely superficial.
Biologic evolution which has resulted in the survival of whatever happens to exist at the moment owes its effects to the differential effect of various enviromental "pressures" on past generations of the organisms considered. Whether through death by starvation or from disease or through reduced or absent mating opportunities, individuals less "fit" are removed from those passing on genes. In such competition, every member of a species potentially able to reproduce is the deadly enemy of every other with respect to reproduction, even among the types termed "social." The "fittest" are not those with particular characteristics fitting their environment. It's t'other way 'round. What survives to reproduce is "fittest" and, as to what made it "fit"–we "fill in the blanks" according to the circumstances we can observe (or guess).
We may presume with some confidence that men have not always been as they are now and that those which we might perceive as "pre-men" were subject to much the same sort of trimming and refining pressures as were lower organisms. But, since the dawn of that day when what we could consider "man" emerged, a different "set of rules" has applied to their survival. Man can do but comparatively little to affect the various environmental influences on his life and survival. But that "little" has been enormously effective and has enabled man or at least some specimens, to live in many circumstances and niches in which mere survival would have heretofore been utterly impossible. The key has been cooperation in the attainment of whatever humans themselves have desired–and that despite a history never free of determined efforts by some to eliminate those perceived as rivals or obstacles in the attainment of those desires. Even in the many conflicts, the most evident result has been the survival of those groups exhibiting inclination for the highest degree of cooperation, including with groups other than themselves. Throughout the world, the dominant survivors are those who built, produced, and traded, as opposed to those whose mode was killing and despoliation, whether or not the genes of the latter live on in some descendents of the former.
Man, for all practical purposes and for such time as additional members of the species cannot enlarge the total satisfactions available but must unavoidably reduce those because of resource usage, has, to all effects, moved "beyond" the environmental pressures to which all other life-forms are routinely subject and does not "evolve" in any substantive way. I do not maintain that we are not still subject to our environment–merely that, as a species, nothing short of cataclysmic occurrences (whether in the short or long term) have much potential to defeat what seem the more universal aspirations of existence. Nor do I insist that genetic activity, whether in combining or mutating (or newer-introduced processes involving deliberate genetic manipulation–"genetic engineering") are without specific effects–merely that these processes promise little change in basic "humanity," whether favorable or unfavorable (when compared to the already-present degree of success).
The fact that free trade among all people results in "the greatest good for the greatest number" is at least partly apparent even to its (free trade) opponents; the argument of some runs along the line of "Even if the total satisfaction of all were increased, the elevation in the condition of the very many now living at a very low level would, perforce, involve an unpleasant reduction in the conditions of a significant number of others presently living very comfortably–among whom I count myself." This is not an easy argument with which to deal; but if its utterer is not a member of some specifically-advantaged group (such as a union member or subsidized farmer), it is specious. Furthermore, it is even likely to be false with respect to some of those favored groups' members, though these are arguments I haven't got time to make at the moment (and they are really somewhat "off-topic.").
The "optimistic" circumstances and potential of human existence I've described are due partly to our consciousness and partly to natural, environmental circumstances. To each of us, everything "outside" ourselves is "environment," including others of our species. And, for each of us, these others, as well as all other features of the external environment, are viewed as potential "means" for the achievement of "ends" summed in the term "satisfaction." These means differ in various qualities affecting their ability to serve us. Some are bigger, some smaller, some nearer, some further, some smell good, others better; some are closer to where we work (or want to play); some we can rent out for income, others are only fit for depositing trash. And, in arranging choices between those means we wish to acquire to serve us, we "value." Some land is fit either for growing corn or grapes or building a house. Normally, we put the place to the purpose forced on us by the choices of our fellow men: whichever way puts more in our pocket (the "more" expresses the will of our fellows). We can do whatever we like with the land we own but if we do other than directed by the height of market prices, we pay the difference ourselves. The fact is that almost all "natural resources" have more than a single potential use and a freely-determined price makes it easy to choose what is "best."
Humans are far more versatile than pieces of ground. In all but the most primitive societies or those that are overwhelmingly unfree, a man may choose from some variety
of ways to "earn his living." With a bit of difficulty, in most cases he can even leave an area which does not present sufficient opportunity and seek another in which to put his inborn talent or determination to advantage, despite lack of training or education. Further (and again, with the exceptions noted above), even the least talented or "intelligent" are capable of living securely in reasonably-developed economies for the simple reason that there are always services to be rendered to the "better off" whose desires (like everyone else's) are, literally, insatiable. In the better-developed economies, even those of the least earning power among the not-disabled are able to live with amenities scarcely imaginable not very long ago. That their work may be more physically difficult, more dangerous, less interesting (or "fulfilling")is merely a feature of such work. Any one is free to do better–if they can do better. But at each "rung of the ladder" and in each of the specialities open to his abilities (and these are generally improvable, as well, up to some distinctly higher level), by doing the best for himself, he (and everyone else) are doing the very best for each other. There is simply no way for it to be any other way.
I left for last (and separately) the most significant way in which competition between humans for favored spots within the market economy differs as completely as is imaginable from that which occurs between lower organisms in the "struggle for survival."
The result of the struggle in which lower organisms are engaged, whether inter- or intra-species, is that the unsuccessful cease to exist, either by being killed, starving, or failing to mate (or mate enough) and perpetuate their particular genetic complement.
In comparison, humans compete merely for positions within a system of virtual total survival. The system itself is of benefit to all, ultimately providing even the lowest of "losers" (the so-called "losers of life's lottery" in the expression of pessimistic leftists) with benefits with which they could not, under any circumstances, have provided–even imagined–for themselves. Both the construction worker and the heart surgeon are likely to have talents and intellect sufficient to perform many of the tasks required in the building of a house, given adequate preparation. But it is highly unlikely that the construction worker would have been able to master that which is required to perform adequately in the medical field. But, with specialization and competitive
effort to achieve the best "payoff" possible, the construction worker can receive the product of the other's efforts (not to mention the products of processes beyond his comprehension, from synthetic fabrics to microchip-enabled gadgetry). "Defeat" in such competition merely means a more modest position (and income) but carries with it not the slightest hint of extinction or inability to "mate and perpetuate one's kind." Infant mortality reduction, disease prevention and cure, and longevity figures have changed dramatically and favorably the more the free market has penetrated–and for all segments of society. To find similarity in the two processes is not merely erroneous–it borders on the rankest stupidity.
Mr. Boudreaux:
You've dubbed the concept of biologic evolution and that of the advantages of the free market as "counterintuitive."
Over at Gene Expression, it's routine to hear one or another of the posters bemoan as "counterintuitive" any one of many ideas or hypotheses to which they're individually attached but unsuccessful at persuading sufficient numbers of others, whether peers or less-informed plebians. "Godless Atheist" is even wont to attach "counterintuitiveness" to an entire discipline at which he excels (statistics).
"Counterintuitiveness" is hogwash–a "cop-out" position to assuage frustration and divert attention from individual inadequacy in the realms of explanation and clarification. It's like saying "Yes, Sally–you're right–math IS hard."
When Jesse Jackson described how he was relieved (when he heard footsteps behind him and turned and saw a white person), he demonstrated just how certainly and very intuitive "statistics" is. Every angler is displaying the intuitiveness of statistics when he reads the paper before a fishing trip to find out which baits are working for which species, which species are "running," and what catches have been like for others fishing the day before.
The concept could be stretched. It might explain why only a small (but reasonable) number of the gals I've tried to persuade were so persuaded. To all the others, it must have been counterintuitive!
That there are differing abilities to comprehend seems obvious, whether we know why or not. And that some who comprehend are able to pass a reasonable facsimile to some others but not yet others is, likewise unremarkable–otherwise everyone would understand everything which was understood by anyone.
J.M. Keynes once remarked (in explaining his failure to have addressed important criticisms of his works by the Austrian-school economist, Mises) that, in reading German, he was unable to understand anything he didn't already understand. That may be lame but it's a lameness common enough everywhere. At some point, whether of age, relative intellectual satisfaction, or mere comfort with existing circumstances, men reach a point where they cannot (or WILL not–it's impossible to know in an individual case) comprehend an idea beyond their present understanding. But it is also true that those seeking to impart new or contradictory information vary widely in their abilities in that regard and even those who are reasonably successful vary insofar as to just which audiences they are able to "reach."
A better explanation for the difficulty in imparting the various arguments for market (and individual) freedom as against coercive intervention and collectivist "planning" is to recognize that, in fact, impulses toward hostility, belligerence, and spoliation are coexistent with those for amicability, production, and exchange. They are both "intuitive" in that wise and are chosen by individuals as with any other choices: "what seems best to me," whether guided by religious views, parental instruction, societal circumstances–or even by education and familiarity with economic thought.
Not only that–but I know it's a "cop-out" because because "many-a-time I done it myself."