The latest EconTalk is a conversation with my colleague Dan Klein on the economics of coordination—how markets connect people around the world doing various parts of a task that get combined into a finished product without any of the people contributing the task necessarily knowing that they’re working together. Along the way, we talk about what Dan, calls The People’s Romance, the idea that the highest human activity is a government project of some kind that "we" work on together. Dan argues that such an urge to is widespread and that it degrades our culture. I argue it’s dangerous. Enjoy. Next week is William Easterly.
The People's Romance
Previous post: The vanishing middle class
Next post: Who's Generous?
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 47 comments }
I don't really get what's so great about "The People's Romance." One of the examples used in the podcast was the idea of hundreds of people working together to make pizzas for Super Bowl Sunday. I guess the logic goes something like this "yes, this might be an inefficient way of producing pizza, but at least we're working together."
I don't want to generalize, but we don't work because it's what we love to do- we work so we have the opportunity to do what we love to do.
The percentage of people who actually get to do what they love to do for a living is awfully small. I don't know how this "People's Romance" project could help increase that small percentage.
Furthermore, I bet a significantly smaller percentage of people would be happy in a "People's Romance" because of the decline in quality of life.
I noticed a sign yesterday for a lecture sponsored by the ISO titled "Disaster Capitalism," and it really bothered me. I can't help but wonder what of 'disasters' of socialism would bring.
I don't know, if I'm going wrong somewhere, let me know.
"The People's Romance, the idea that the highest human activity is a government project of some kind that "we" work on together."
Who feels this way? I'd say the average American understands both the utility of government and the problems with its excesses. The extreme positions might be those rare people who believe government is either the answer to ALL our problems or the solution to NONE. As with every thing….. moderation.
Exactly, muirgeo.
We even have a document (220 years old) that made a pretty good job of defining that middle ground, delimiting the role of government, and leaving the rest to individuals.
Too bad we don't see fit to use it any more.
Corey,
The pizza story wasn't about the people's romance. The pizza story was about coordination without a coordinator. The people's romance is coordination with a coordinator–JFK promising to put a man on the moon, LBJ promising to end poverty with the Great Society or Hitler promising to return Germany to greatness.
"I'd say the average American understands both the utility of government and the problems with its excesses." – Murthaduck
This, from the person who wants government to force me to pay for his health care.
"This, from the person who wants government to force me to pay for his health care."
This from the person who wants government to force me to pay for his police.
(correct me if I'm wrong)
Corey: I believe "Disaster Capitalism" is a reference to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831
I agree, Jeff. They should both be voluntary.
You should blog about this: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=1.
Lending regulations were probably a cause of the subprime crisis
This, from the person who wants government to force me to pay for his health care.
Posted by: brotio
No but to democratically decide if we are going to provide government health. You already are paying a lot for health care for yourself and others. There's a way to pay less for better results. If you consider democracy force I think you're in the wrong country fella.
Democracy isn't a matter of force. If you don't like the democracy are Founding Fathers set up you are free to go to the next liberal country over.
Democracy is not about force but about societal decision making…that's how we do it here. Now you're born into it and you expect the rules to change to suit you? WTH!
Its about force. Democracy is a battle in which the side that shows up with the most people is assumed to be the winner. But whether the next battle is fought with votes or weapons depends primarily on the behavior of the winners.
"If you don't like the democracy are Founding Fathers set up"
They set up a Republic.
mace,
Is a Republic a democratic form of governance?
If you consider democracy force I think you're in the wrong country fella.
Or course it is force. So-called "democracy" is a word for 'majority rule' (is that right?) notice the word 'rule'.
What does 'rule' mean except the control of people via the law.
I hope you don't mind paying for all those deaths in other countries via democratically financed invasion and occupation.
And it doesn't matter which country you are in.
You are so obtuse about this muirgeo.
Do you think that a law is automatically just as long as it is 'democratically' enacted?
Do you think there is no morality other than 'democracy'.
Quote from muirgeo: "Democracy is not about force but about societal decision making…that's how we do it here."
I have to wonder if you've ever actually read the Constitution. You defend everything with your wonderful god "democracy", as if anything you can get 51% of some concocted group to agree to, then its somehow moral and ethical to do.
Look at all the wonderful things democracy has given us in the past and the present: slavery, wars, segregation, prohibition, endless taxes and inflation, corruption, graft, rent-seeking, influence peddling. All of which were/are completely fine and moral, based on your logic, because they were enacted by majorities.
Is there anything you don't think should fall under the power of "democracy"?
Police? Well yeah…
I have several friends on the force, bless 'em, but their job description makes their workday 75% bureaucratic, and 25% active enforcement.
And they can NEVER be there when you need them the most. That's one of the reasons for the Second Amendment.
keith,
Muirgeo will just counter that these ills aren't the product of 'democracy' per se and that they are a result of the subversion of 'democracy'.
The real point is that 'democracy' as muirgeo idealizes it, is not obtainable with a political government.
Muirgeo's ideal of democracy makes no account of human nature and the realities of group dynamics.
Any large organization of humans will be dominated by a relative few. The problem is greatest in overtly political structures, that is, political government.
It's amazing what kind of glazed look my liberal friends get when I remind them we live in a Republic, not a democracy. They keep insisting on democracy this, democracy that. They drive me batty.
Thanks to years of government indoctrination.
Democracy is the new opiate of the masses.
This is the fundamental problem defenders of individual liberty face: we are against democracy, because we realize democracy undermines individual rights and subjects them to the fickleness and ignorance of a majority.
Since we are against democracy and people think democracy is the wellspring of all things good in this world, we have a problem. Kaplan of the Atlantic wrote a nice essay about he problems of democracy. Taking a look at how south africa is deteriorating is also instructive.
Luckily we can draw upon a constitution that supports our anti-democratic views here, Europe and other parts of the world are not so lucky.
Democracy? Republic? Since when did the word Republic mean something fancy? A Republic pretty much means there's no royal family in charge. That hardly sounds incompatible with Democracy. Or any thing fancy either.
Oh no!? Democracy = bad?! Why!? Oh yeah the average person on the street is f#*$tards or a thief. After all, how many people run their own business? Not many. Most seek look for jobs like children looking for chores from their parents for pocket money. Democracy is like parents and children voting on what to have for dinner and having parents acting surprised if they keep eating candy every night.
Should the Founding Fathers instead opted for a system of a Federation of Monarchs? Every one with their own private plot tries their best to make it work. If they become successful they become a mini-Monarch with sovereign rights over their plot and when the time comes when there's no more profitable land they rent the land out to newcomers and the newcomers abide the laws of the Monarch of the plot. Had this system been employed you wouldn't have to worry death by government nor multiculturism?
Gil:
Are you implying every person has to run their own business?
"The People's Romance, the idea that the highest human activity is a government project of some kind that "we" work on together."
This kind of propaganda reminds me of that old communist saying of "Build it as you would build it for yourself."
As if pride in one's work can only be realized through socialism.
* Democracy = Rule by omnipotent majority
In a Democracy the individual, and any group of individuals composing a minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority in power. It is a case of majority rule over the individual.
* Republic = Its purpose is to control the majority and others in order to protect the individual’s God given rights. The goal of a republic is in protecting the rights of all of those in the minority. Republics exist to protect the liberties of people.
Democracies are really quite difference from Republics.
I don't find these definitions in any dictionary. You're making it up, and you're obviously a "Republican" propogandist yourself.
Er. Nope. A Republic is a society that isn't a Monarchy. Simple. There can be Democratic Republics, Communist Republics, Theocratic Republics, etc.. Perhaps some here aspire more to towards a Oligarchic Republic or a Plutocratic Republic whereby the clever/rich rule.
Political governments of any description end up as oligarchies…sooner or later.
At one point, Klein argues that EJW is giving economists at universities that may not be top-tier a "seat at the table" and Russell Roberts seems to indicate that the these economists haven't "earned" a seat at the table (meaning I think that they haven't earned a chance at getting work into the top-tier journals).
Although Klein at a much different point notes the decline in commentary in top-tier journals, it is not very directly connected to the Roberts point about earning a seat at the table.
The connection is important to make clear: in the past economists at lower-tier journals had a much greater chance of being published in top-tier journals via submission of critical commentary on article published in top-tier journals. But these opportunities to be at the table have fallen dramatically. EJW is helping to fill this void. But for the "hostility" toward critical commentary by top-tier editors, Some (many) of the critiques in EJW would have been in top-tier journals. So an assertion about such economists (as those writing critiques in EJW) not deserving a seat at the table is problematic.
"The People's Romance, the idea that the highest human activity is a government project of some kind that "we" work on together."
In the podcast, this 'desire' is attacked by comparing it to people's desire for 'sweets', a co-labeled as a desire that 'no longer serves a purpose'.
What concerns me here is where and when is this argument appropriate? Could we not say that people's desire for physical competition that we observe in the Superbowl is based in an adaptation that no longer serves the greater good? How about love? How about the desire for social status? Sex? Beauty in Art? The desire for justice? The desire for fairness? The desire for large families? The desire for social power? The desire for fame? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…
As dangerous as we may conclude the 'People's Romance' to be, could it in any way compare to the danger of a set of economic theories that first decided which desires were 'good' and 'bad', and then tried to do something about them as a result?
So let's say that the 'People's Romance', and the 'People's Sweettooth' are both 'dangerous'. Now what? In essence, we have built the case for every policy that we deplore. Market Planning? 'We can't trust our instincts for sweets, so we need to plan them down' Regulation? 'Sugar levels in food should be kept low' Indoctrination? 'People need to know the truth' etc, etc, etc.
As soon as we argue that "Individuals can't be trusted", individuals wont be.
-bruce
Gil is correct here in so far as he goes, but he leaves a lot dangling when or if he writes in reference to "our", not his, founding fathers and the government they established under the constitution.
"Er. Nope. A Republic is a society that isn't a Monarchy. Simple. There can be Democratic Republics, Communist Republics, Theocratic Republics, etc.. Perhaps some here aspire more to towards a Oligarchic Republic or a Plutocratic Republic whereby the clever/rich rule.
Posted by: Gil | Feb 7, 2008 8:42:51 AM"
Anyone can call themselves anything, evidenced by muirduck's calling himself intelligent, as any government can call itself a "republic". In fact a government such as Communist China or the Soviet Union can even present a constitution that on the face of it provides for elections of a president or leader and other officials, and indeed that is what those two nations did. The failing details here being that the government chose the candidate (1) and the people cast their vote (99%) for that candidate, or they died.
However, what our founding fathers gave us was a limited Representative Republic. The word limited applied to its powers and to its electorate. It did not have sole and ultimate power in all cases, being limited by the constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings which have demonstratively kept the government under control far better and far longer than any communist republic. And, as for the limited electorate, they did not leave us a pluralistic democracy in which one man one vote was the ideal. Qualifications to be a voter were strict and in fact less than 25% of the people were qualified and did the actual voting.
Furthermore the government had no hand in choosing who could or should run and there were no restrictions on how many candidates could run for any particular office. This is still prettymuch true. Yes yes I know it is expensive and tough but it is legal.
So yes, there are many horrendous governments in the world that call themselves a republic, but the real truth is in the details, and that is where Gil did not go.
Nope. It seems you missed the point too, vidyohs. A Republic is an antonym to a Monarchy. A Republic isn't a Monarchy. That's it. You and babinich seem to think a Republic is a all-round definition for a ideal Libertarian society. It doesn't matter how craptacular a society is – if it isn't run by a Monarchy it's a Republic. Hell, put it another way – Australia isn't a Republic, it's actually a Constitutional Monarchy – yet most people probably would rather have lived in Australia than the Union of Soviet Socialist -Republic- or the People -Republic- of China. Like it or lump it those two Communist Countries were Republics yet technically Australia operated closer to a free market.
Maybe that's why he said: "what our founding fathers gave us was a limited Representative Republic."
I think what Dan Klein is getting at is that humans have a 'tribal instinct' manifesting in an emotional attachment to tribal structures and that this does not serve us well in the milieu of the state.
oops
BTW, I been listening to the podcast today.
Is it illegal to foment a violent overthrow of the government?
Is it illegal to foment a violent overthrow of the government?
Always.
Unless it's the CIA fomenting violent overthrow of someone else's government.
Apparently that's legal.
Anyhow, while listening to the podcast, I noticed much hemming and hawing and complaining about the lack of language to describe precisely what they are discussing.
I think the language can be found in Evolutionary Psychology.
It is acknowledged by anyone with any sensibility that humans are social creatures.
This suggests that our psychological adaptation to tribal structures still plays a critical role in human behavior.
The problem now is that we have a state, a sort of 'super tribe' that has fundamental differences with the tribes we developed in.
Politicians are those who are, or become, adept at manipulating us by our instinctual responses, hence the frequent appeal to fear by the political class…and others.
A unique feature of the American experience is the plethora of voluntary associations, or 'sub-tribes', if you will.
I suspect that there is a genetic basis for the different types of collective sentiments exhibited by various persons. There are those who are wary of outsiders, those who are worried about logistical security, among others.
Individual emotional interests based on genetic makeup determine whether a person is attracted to religion, economic collectivism, fascism, etc.
The problem for 'the state' is to form these disparate interests into coherent support for the political hierarchy. Fear works well in this regard. Unfortunately, this can, and often does, bring people into a feral state, that is, one dominated by fear and in which great power is transferred to the few who act to 'accept' this power.
The libertarian solution to this problem is freedom; that is, allow and accept the existence of sub-tribes and place severe restrictions on the super-state. IOW, a constitutionally limited government.
Unfortunately, this only works if a significant number of people are aware and active in maintaining these restrictions.
Hence, the responsibility for maintaining civilization falls ultimately upon individuals.
Sam:
So let's say for the sake of argument that the CIA fomented a violent overthrow of the Sandanista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Was that a legitimate government that deserved to exist? Was it chosen by the people in an open, democratic process or imposed by force? Those are questions that have to be looked into before issuing snarky "CIA is evil" posts.
Was it chosen by the people in an open, democratic process or imposed by force? Those are questions that have to be looked into before issuing snarky "CIA is evil" posts.
How about [link Operation Ajax]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax[/link]?
IAC, why are you bringing this up?
Were you perhaps intending to respond to a comment not made by me?
Did I say anything like "CIA is evil"?
Operation Ajax
Sorry, that's markup for a different blog site.
Unless it's the CIA fomenting violent overthrow of someone else's government.
Apparently that's legal.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 8, 2008 1:17:45 AM
I'd say that's snarky comment implying that the CIA is an evil entity overthrowing legitimate foreign governments.
"Was it chosen by the people in an open, democratic process or imposed by force?"
I'm sure others would argue you were repeating yourself then FL.
Why do the local leftists always say 'if you don't like the federal government does, move to a different country' but reject the idea of a imited federal government where the ultimate control is 'if you don't like what your state government does, move to a different state'
I'd say that's snarky comment implying that the CIA is an evil entity overthrowing legitimate foreign governments.
It was intended more to those who think anything the government does is OK because the government does it, or authorized it. I don't think the CIA is an evil entity, I think it's a tool. It can be used for good or ill.
But if our government's policy is to support 'democracy' then overthrowing democratically elected governments is, at the very least, hypocritical, for it either misrepresents it's policy in the former or violates it in the latter.
I wonder if you can tell when something is a result of evil or not. If you are Dondero or anything like him, then I don't wonder at all about that.
IAC, that's rather off topic to the post which is about "The People's Romance".
It is typical for Dondero to ignore the topic.
Hence the question: Is it illegal to foment a violent overthrow of the government? out of the blue. I should haven't question that when it was posed. What does the question have to do with anything I said previously?