Commenting on this post, Daniel Kuehn suggests that when Paul Krugman advocates European-style labor-market restrictions and subsidies, he (Krugman) does so not as a means of increasing employment today – in the midst of a recession – but, rather, as a means of keeping employment from falling as dramatically from its boom-time highs. As Daniel puts it, “Krugman was clearly advocating an unemployment-smoothing strategy across the business cycle, which would increase unemployment in boom times but reduce it in busts.”
Having re-read Krugman’s column several times, I disagree with Daniel regarding Krugman’s intent. Krugman might well believe that such labor-market policies are desirable in part because they are “unemployment-smoothing.” But in his column he talks about what can and ought to be done now to reduce America’s current double-digit unemployment rate.
But for the sake of argument let me grant, during the remainder of this post, that Daniel’s interpretation of Krugman is correct. Alas, such a generous reading of the Princeton professor does little to save him from being justly accused of having infused the column in question with questionable economics.
Below, as reported by the OECD, are annual unemployment rates for Germany and the U.S. for the ten-year periord 1998 through 2007. (I chose this period because I want reliable comparable data for both countries — so I use the OECD’s reported data for both countries, and 2007 is the most-recent year for which the OECD provides annual unemployment rates for each of these countries.)
Year Germany U.S.
1998 9.0% 4.5%
1999 8.3% 4.2%
2000 7.5% 4.0%
2001 7.6% 4.7%
2002 8.4% 5.8%
2003 9.3% 6.0%
2004 9.8% 5.5%
2005 10.6% 5.1%
2006 9.8% 4.6%
2007 8.4% 4.6%
While it’s true that Germany’s unemployment rate today of 7.7% is lower than America’s current rate of 10.2%, it’s very difficult to look at the above numbers on unemployment rates over recent years and conclude that European-style labor-market restrictions are good policies for people seeking gainful employment. The average rate of unemployment for Germany over the 1998-2007 period was 8.9% while that for the U.S. was 4.9%.
So if these restrictions “smooth” unemployment, they seem to do so by keeping unemployment perpetually high.
(BTW, I italicize “if” because, at least during the downturn at the beginning of 2000s, it’s not at all clear that changes in Germany’s unemployment rates were significantly smoother than were those in the U.S. — but perhaps such “smoothing” is meant to kick in only for really big downturns, such as the one that began in late 2007, in which case there is added force to what I’ll say now as I return to the main line of my argument.)
If high rates of unemployment are undesirable (and they certainly are), what’s the advantage to having “smoother” unemployment over time if that “smoother” unemployment is at levels chronically higher than would exist in the absence of the policies aimed at “smoothing” unemployment?
If a quack physician continually injects substances into your body that keep you feeling ill, year in year out, you’ll not be much comforted knowing that the change in the way you feel when you really get sick is less than is the change in the way that people not subject to the quack physician feel when those people really get sick. Induced long-term illness is no cure for illness; nor is it a method of making the patient healthy over the long-run.
Share
{ 84 comments }
Don,
This is off topic, of course, but I just wanted to point out to you that your “John Stossel” link under Blogroll in the left column goes to ABC 20/20, so you might want to update.
It’s just this simple:
Since the market always tends toward equilibrium between the supply of and demand for labor, as for anything else, it always tends toward full employment. So, when there is chronic, massive unemployment, it could only have been caused by interference with the market, the remedy for which is not more but less of it, and, ideally, none at all.
Remove the anti-market impediments to full employment, and, just like that, no more unemployment, recession or no recession.
No inventory cycles? No accelerators? No financial fragility? No periodic technological unemployment? Just like that – no more recessions? Sounds pretty nice – you might say utopian – but I’m not so sure.
Daniel,
If no more invisible hand and tendency toward equilibrium, no more economics. The very fact that we’re discussing this implies economics, the invisible hand and the market’s tendency toward equilibrium, and, without anti-market impediments to it, full employment, with or without a recession.
Just saying you’re skeptical isn’t enough. Tell me what’s wrong with it.
I am waiting for him to answer you too.
But, I ain’t holding my breath.
Count your blessings
It seems to me that socialist (no Dan I’m not calling you one) hate capitalism, they want to redistribute but for some reason they can’t seem to get rid of the market or prices. I find this fascinating. Shouldn’t a true Socialist society “based on need” blah blah, just have a politician say you get this and this…no market everything by decree. Yet they just can’t pull the trigger. Is it because they know that markets really do work, and they are just too stubborn to admit it, you know like trying to save face? I can’t seem to get my head around it.
>>I can’t seem to get my head around it.
It’s about power and control. The socialists don’t care that markets work, they care about having power. They don’t care if their meddling makes things worse, as long as they can come up with excuses to expand their power.
They don’t care about right and wrong, they care about imposing their will upon others.
Once you understand this then their lies, their contempt, and their inability to admit to mistakes will all make sense.
From Krugman:
Trying something different, of course, must be the Keuhn-interpreted emPLOYment-smoothing strategy. So, in these non normal times, U.S. policy should be fixed at once so that the normal times have a smooth[, yet pertutually high, near 8%] employment rate. This is what Keuhn suggests that Krugman calls for, right? I wonder if Krugman would have the courage to admit that this is what he meant. I highly doubt it [mainly because I don't think Krugman is as honest as Keuhn and probably would not admit to any costs involved -- the higher unemployment]!
Krugman probably really thinks that the labor policies can be subtracted and added, as needed, yet retain all of the supposed benefits, without the detriments, throughout. And, with a little pixie dust and unicorn-laced pieces of paper, I’m sure that’s the kind of Economics I could believe in as well.
Why do you say 8%? Take a look at data 1950-2007, rather than 1998-2007, and you’ll be a little more humble about how well you can predict what the steady state will be.
But definitely, it will be higher than in the absence of such a policy.
Plus – you don’t think ridiculously generous German unemployment insurance benefits have anything to do with their 8%? What’s your logic behind thinking that the firing restrictions alone would put us up at that rate?
I’m just trying to understand your reasoning – to repeat, I don’t see the danger in flexible labor markets that Krugman does.
You are right. Subsidizing people not to work is indeed an incentive for people not to work. Stunning.
Based on your history, I have to assume that you are in favor of subsidizing people not to work.
Not the way the Germans do. A couple months replacing 50% of earnings or so to facilitate job search and maintain consumption, sure. I’m fine with how we do it in the U.S..
Germany and a lot of Europe does almost every labor market policy we do only more so – and then on top of that it does a lot of labor market interventions that we don’t do. I’m just trying to make sure that we don’t attribute the entire four or five point gap in unemployment to this single policy that Krugman is (in my mind mistakenly) advocating. That sort of attribution would be nonsense.
>>Why do you say 8%?<>But definitely, it will be higher than in the absence of such a policy.<>Plus – you don’t think ridiculously generous German unemployment insurance benefits have anything to do with their 8%?<>What’s your logic behind thinking that the firing restrictions alone would put us up at that rate?<>I’m just trying to understand your reasoning – to repeat, I don’t see the danger in flexible labor markets that Krugman does.<<
Wait; you had written that Krugman does see the dangers [harm, is the word you used] in not allowing a flexible labor market — that that is clear. It's just that these are not normal times. Get your story straight, Kuehn!
“It’s not normal times” is an excuse that has been used to subjugate and murder millions of people by dictators and totalitarians for millenia.
Oh I’m sure they had “good” intentions right?
Well done. Great blog post Don.
I fail to see what place facts and reality should have in this conversation.
chris,
You’re right. This is economics, not history!
RE: “So if these restrictions “smooth” unemployment, they seem to do so by keeping unemployment perpetually high.”Certainly – you’ll note that in the other post I said these policies are generally thought to do three things: (1.) increase unemployment during boom times, (2.) lower unemployment during busts, AND (3.) increase structural unemployment. It’s for that third reason – which you highlight here but don’t mention that I already raised it in the last post – that I disagreed with Krugman on the firing restrictions he advocated.I think the story is somewhat more complicated than this. Clearly the entire difference between Germany and the U.S. isn’t due solely to the firing restriction policy. A lot of it is probably attributable to East Germany, which still suffers from the legacy that Communism left. A lot of it is due to ridiculously generous unemployment insurance, etc. So it’s hard to attribute that difference just to the firing restrictions. But certainly those restrictions increase unemployment.I’m curious, Don, to what you attribute the considerably lower unemployment in Europe than in the United States before the late 1970s. These restrictive policies were in place then too, after all. I think any consistent approach to these issues needs to answer to the European outperformance in the early post-war period AS WELL AS the U.S’s otuperformance in the late post-war period. Barry Eichengreen does a particularly good job reconciling the two periods in his recent book “The European Economy Since 1945″.It’s always about tradeoffs. What do you fear more: higher, but predictably higher unemployment rates or higher unemployment volatility. What do you value more: lower, unemployment rates or lower unemployment volatility. How you answer that tradeoff goes a long way in determining how you feel about these sorts of policies.
“What do you fear more: higher, but predictably higher unemployment rates or higher unemployment volatility. What do you value more: lower, unemployment rates or lower unemployment volatility.”
What I fear more is social engineering by those who think they know what’s best for others.
Amen. Deliver me from the one-hammer utilitarians.
Out of curiosity – where do you draw the line between what is “social engineering” and what is “representative self governance”?
People parrot this sentiment a lot on here, and certainly I agree with it too. But I know you’re not all anarchists, if any of you even are. That means you all draw the line somewhere, just like I do. How do you, personally, decide?
We should grant certain limited powers to the government and retain all other rights for the people. And for the avoidance of doubt, we should explicitly state a handful of the people’s most important rights to ensure that the government, using its limited powers, doesn’t accidentally infringe on them. If only we had some sort of baseline, one could say constitutional, document that would do all of this so that we don’t have to create it from scratch. If only…
You sound like you’re coming from exactly where I am, and yet somehow that still gets me called a fascist, a socialist, and a social engineer.
Re; where to draw the line.
Short of the economy. The economy isn’t theirs. We do not work in order to be exploited. We do not hire them to exploit us.
“Out of curiosity – where do you draw the line between what is ‘social engineering’ and what is ‘representative self governance’?”
I draw that line between when the government functions to protect individual liberty from the arbitrary use of illegitimate force from others (including the government) to just about anything else.
That itself causes a lot of debate. One person’s voluntary action can be another person’s illegitimate power. For example, where I see a voluntary (and mutually beneficial) agreement between an employer and employee for the employee to work for a wage below some minimum level, others see an employer exerting illegitimate force over the employee.
What individual rights are protected when the government tries to smooth unemployment? The right to less unemployment volatility? The right not to be fired in bad times?
I s’pose when government tried to abolish slavery they cause a mess of ‘unintended consequences’. Hippies in those times should have either built business from free labour that was more profitable than slave labour or at least bought the slaves from the masters but they weren’t allowed to use force or the government to get what they wanted.
Exactly. As if employment volatility can be finely tuned without a mass of unintended outcomes.
Isn’t it axiomatic that restrictions on causing unemployment will result in prolonging unemployment, i.e. if it becomes harder to fire someone, there is less incentive to hire someone.
RDB/DK,
If you want to smooth something, when you’re at the next Friends of Frankfurt meeting, advise Krugman on the details of your smoothing scheme, then find some way to pay for it/get people to adopt it/make it so that doesn’t involve guns. I know you can do it! One day you and the FOF can initiate plans that don’t rely on state terror! We’re so far past “the line” that there’s no reason to discuss where to draw it.
i am tired of “wonks” and nerds trying to save the world. i wish jocks would rule the world and not ambitious nerds. the jocks wouldnt be capable of screwing up everyone else’s life to such an extent.
unemployment smoothing indeed!.krugman scares me to death
Hey Don.
I´m German, and sorry I have to tell you, you shouldn`t compare with german unemployment rates. Measuring unemployment is systematically flawed over here. For example, to preventing people getting jobless, we have an instrument called “Kurzarbeitergeld”. Means, in a crisis people stay at their jobs, work less hours and get a subsidy – so they aren´t laid off, but are still acceptable paid – and you wont find those people officially rated als “unemployed”.
That regulation works only for people who still have jobs. But there`s no country worldwide where less new jobs are created.
I´m living in Bochum, where`s a plant of OPEL, car manufacturer, owned by GM, and the second chief of the Opel-union (IG Metall) told me, they have to calculate 34€ (~50$) per manhour, while in Gliwice (Poland) another OPEL-GM-plant calculates with 9€ (~14$).
Business is extremly regulated, wages in Germany are very high (and inflexible), and so we have a stable, growing unemployment-discrimination – for older and less qualified people.
If high wages, inflexible unions and excessive labour-market regulations would create jobs, the Germans would really know it – you may tell this to Prof. Krugman.
Thxx for your blog – GeroXC
In times of crisis, markets more than ever!
I went to see Paul Krugman speak in Manchester, Vermont in October. After speaking for an hour, he started taking questions from the audience. A man a few feet away from me stood up and asked him where the jobs were going to come from for his children and grandchildren.
Paul answered that he didn’t know, but green jobs might be an answer. He also said that something might come along that we haven’t invented yet, that will revolutionize things similar to computing and the internet. He just didn’t know from where the jobs were going to come.
I don’t think we can sit around and wait for something to be invented that doesn’t exist yet, but green jobs could put people to work now. Why, as far as I can see, is nothing being done to create green jobs and put people back to work? What about all of the crumbling infrastructure in this country? Roads, bridges, water pipes that are 100 years old and leaking? We spent billions of dollars to save the casinos on wall street. Can’t we spend a few billion to put some people back to work?
I am extremely disappointed that President Obama is not addressing the unemployment problem.
As Paul Krugman said, “We need a better government than we’ve got.”
John,
“As Paul Krugman said, “We need a better government than we’ve got.”"
By “better,” did Professor Krugman mean one smart enough to offer him the position to which he obviously feels so entitled?
That would be an example of job creation both of you can believe in.
“We need a better government than we’ve got” should be a statement that everyone can agree on, except for maybe some Libertarians.
What do you mean “the position to which he obviously feels so entitled?”
No, it’s: “We need LESS government” than what we got. It needs to be trimmed away at like an overgrown hedge.
There is nothing stopping you from creating whatever green jobs you see fit to create. As has been said previously on this blog, you need to lose the “we.”
Well, maybe there are a few things getting in your way. Like page after page of business and employment licensing, rules, and regulations. Not to mention the fees and taxes. Krugman has a few more he would like to add to the list.
When you create those jobs, be sure to file all the necessary forms with the government. And don’t be late with your quarterly, monthly, and annual tax deposits and filings. You thought the credit card companies were harsh with their $35 late fees? You have no idea what harsh is. There is no business as onerous and draconian as the government when it comes to late charges and penalties.
It is not just the Federal government. If you send a withholding tax check to the State of Michigan and it bounces for any reason, the penalty is 25%. It doesn’t matter if you just forgot to transfer funds from a savings account. Things like that might make your enthusiasm for hiring go out the window.
Most of what the government does hinders the creation of jobs. Any jobs it does create are a net drain on total jobs because more jobs are lost than created. It is just that the jobs lost are widely distributed and unseen.
I don’t need a better government. I would like to see people stop expecting and demanding government solutions to problems. I would like to see individuals allowed to act in voluntary association with others to solve problems in peaceful ways.
Bravo. Green jobs are great if they lead to a net gain in wealth. Any job is great if it leads to a net gain in wealth. If these vaunted green jobs just involve breaking a window in order to replace it with a slightly more efficient window, they’re a waste.
From what I see, there are plenty of roads, shoulders of roads, bridges and leaking pipes around here that need to be fixed that nobody should be out of work. There are also a lot of old houses and buildings in NY state that could be insulated. Every dollar we spend here doesn’t go to the middle east.
Every dollar “we” spend on drafty houses? Who is this “we”? Do you really want to spend federal taxes on fixing up houses?
I commented on this particular post. I have not read everything on this blog. This is the second time I have visited. I was surprised at how many emails I got about replies to my comment. I have been in business for my self in both NJ and NY. New York is absolutely ridiculous with forms, regulations and so on. They say they are business friendly! What a joke. I guess they think if they say it, it must be true.
I’d like to see a lot of things too, but government isn’t going away anytime soon. We do need a better government than we’ve got. We the people can’t even get the NY state legislature to pass a reasonable ethics law to police themselves. Even thought the public wants it, they politicians won’t pass it. This should be easy and it isn’t.
The main point of my post is that when you call for a government solution to a problem you are often invoking the very entity that caused much of the problem to begin with. How can you expect the government which puts so many impediments in the way of those who wish to create jobs to be effective or efficient in creating jobs.
Don’s point about Krugman is that he is calling for more impediments to hiring as a way to reduce unemployment. It makes no sense. If we want to lower unemployment we should start by reducing government interference. Reducing the forms, regulations, and taxes.
When you say “We need to…” or “Why can’t we spend…” you are calling for a collectivist, centrally planned solution that is doomed to failure or at least tremendous inefficiency. That is why I said you need to lose the “we.”
A great explanation of this is by Arnold Kling at:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101007A
I feel compelled to defend Krugman here. How could he know what the jobs of tomorrow will be? He is correct, something will emerge. There are people that won’t sit around and wait; they’ll take risks and they will invent something if they can envision a demand for whatever it is that they’re inventing. The real trick is to create an environment where those risks in doing this are more likely to be rewarded (or less likely to be punished).
LowcountryJoe, I didn’t mean to find fault with Paul Krugman. He is one of my favorite columnists. I just meant to point out that even he doesn’t know where the jobs are going to come from. Something needs to be done now. We can’t wait. There are plenty of things that need to be done, but there doesn’t seem to be any urgency to do it. Too many people are out of work and desperate.
We always seem to have money for war, but we can’t find the money to fix our basic infrastructure. I know the president talked about repairing it, but I can’t see anything getting done.
If not now, when?
Jesus guy, did you not even pause to read what Gil and Greg Worrel said?
Get off your ass and go start your own business green, red, blue, black, yellow….just what ever the fuck you want, but for God’s sake stop sitting around sucking your thumb and asking other people to give you something, even if that something is a job.
Go make you own job.
There is no thumb sucking go on around here. I don’t agree with what all of the people you mentioned said. I don’t agree with you either. By the way, I have a job.
There is no need to be crude. Would you like a bar of Lifebouy soap to wash that mouth out?
>>I just meant to point out that even he doesn’t know where the jobs are going to come from.<<
If he knew where the jobs would be coming from — and he had accurately predicted thse things in the past — he'd be selling the information himself and he'd be the wealthiest man on the face of the Earth because he'd invest early.
This is all that I'll write in reply to your post.
I doubt it. Rising tax rates and punishing regulation don’t encourage people to take more risks and spend the time to innovate. At least not here. Companies are expanding – but, in Asia, not here. Worse, nobody expects that to change. They’re trading on their expectations and staying one step ahead of the U.S. government by getting the heck out.
I think this has been discussed on this blog before. Spain’s “green job” program has destroyed something like 6-10 jobs for every one created.
As Paul Krugman said, “We need a better government than we’ve got.”
You’ve got exactly the government you voted for. Enjoy.
This isn’t the government that I voted for. Not in any way, shape or form. Don’t say that. My government has been taken over by creepy senators who try to pick up people in airport bathrooms and by the other senators who won’t even kick him out of office and take away his benefits. My government has been taken over by lobbyists who bribe congressman to do what’s in their best interest, not mine.
My government has been taken over by people who pardoned Scooter Libby who was convicted in a court of law and never spent a day in jail when the reporter who told the story sat in a cell for months.
This isn’t the government that I voted for.
I think this is a simple public choice problem. Krugman knows such policy recommendations lead to more unemployment, but unemployment isn’t the issue. Krugman’s personal welfare is at stake. More people out of work means a potential increase in demand for the type of policy recommendations Krugman makes.
As spooky-impressive as “Nobel Laureate” sounds after his name, he’s a rational human being like everyone else. Or maybe he thinks extenuating circumstances call for irrational policy recommendations…
Where am I? The Twilight Zone?
Over his Pop Internationalism, Krugman explained high unemployment over Europe as repercussions of the common currency and labor regulation. Not sure what made him change his mind.
IMO, the high German unemployment rate primarily goes back to the high unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are set uniformly by the federal government, and there is a nice correlation between states’/districts’ unemployment rate and their price level. The prosperous southern states of Bavaria and Bade-Wuerttemberg hold up very well in comparison to the US, even though they are subject to the same rules regarding firing.
IMO, the high German unemployment rate primarily goes back to the high unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are set uniformly by the federal government, and there is a nice correlation between states’/districts’ unemployment rate and their price level. The prosperous southern states of Bavaria and Bade-Wuerttemberg hold up very well in comparison to the US, even though they are subject to the same rules regarding firing.
Alright Daniel, this is your shot. Unleash the dogs of war!
Love the intimation of Krugman as a “quack.” Can’t stop laughing. I know it’s not substantive laughter, but it sure feels good…..
Yep, out of one side of your mouth pour the “heartfelt” claims that you love liberty and out of the other side comes all the suggestions for engineering the economy via taxation and employment policies, etc. that render all of your supposed love of liberty meaningless. Just because you don’t see it, Danny, doesn’t mean nobody else does.
You love to socially engineer – but, of course, only where you think it’s necessary. Otherwise, you want to leave everyone alone – where you think it’s necessary. Of course, you’ve been told this before and you didn’t understand a word of it, so I don’t expect you to get it this time either.
Yep, out of one side of your mouth pour the “heartfelt” claims that you love liberty and out of the other side comes all the suggestions for engineering the economy via taxation and employment policies, etc. that render all of your supposed love of liberty meaningless. Just because you don’t see it, Danny, doesn’t mean nobody else does.
You love to socially engineer – but, of course, only where you think it’s necessary. Otherwise, you want to leave everyone alone – where you think it’s necessary. Of course, you’ve been told this before and you didn’t understand a word of it, so I don’t expect you to get it this time either.
At the risk of making an unfair generalization, it seems to me that you’re continually trying to ‘split the baby.’ Like Methinks said above, you support a certain degree of government intervention all the time, where you think it’s helpful. That’s hard to swallow for the rest of us.
Admittedly it’s a really hard line to draw, and to some extent if one wants to be a purist it’s hard to support anything short of anarchy on the one hand or communism on the other. I’m just glad that the Framers put in place the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and especially the oft-ignored 9th Amendment. That’s where I draw the line — it’s easy to be able to rely on the judgment of long-dead people much smarter than myself that also happens to be the law of the land.
I’m glad this was posted twice. That way I can “like” it twice. The guy is so transparent.
>>At the risk of making an unfair generalization, it seems to me that you’re continually trying to ‘split the baby.’<<
No risk; overly fair.
Like Methinks said above, you support a certain degree of government intervention all the time, where you think it's helpful.<>That’s hard to swallow for the rest of us.<<
This is why I'm noy buying into claims that he doesn't support government involvement on this thing or that. I think that he does this in order to try and gain some type of half assed credibility so that maybe we'll be swayed by his 'middle-of-the-road' views. That's my guess, at least.
You all may think I’m splitting the baby, but as you allude to an anarchist would suggest Methinks is splitting the baby. The fact is, it’s only splitting the baby to you because you see it as an illegitimate middle point between two internally consistent extremes. My baby analogy for you guys is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. See – we’re both being cruel to babies, we just express it in different ways because of the perspective that each of us have.
I see the role for government as being the one that was laid out by the founders as well, and while I know people can have a range of perspectives on what exactly that was, one thing I know it wasn’t was this version of libertarianism that considers taxes theft and efforts at representative self-government to be tyranny. It’s plain simply from the historical record that that wasn’t what the founders thought.
It’s a rhetorical tactic to categorize both sides of an argument as “extreme” (no matter what the argument is about) and always take a position in the middle. Then you can try to elicit praise for the sophistication of your analysis and endeavor to broker a compromise solution. That’s the way I see a lot of Daniel’s posts.Sometimes, though, you just wind up killing the baby.
Most of the world is in “the middle” precisely because they can see value in both sides of an argument. And there usually is value in both sides of an argument because life is about tradeoffs. It’s always about tradeoffs. In a world of tradeoffs, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that corner solutions aren’t always the best solutions.
I don’t see any praiseworthiness or sophistication in these middle positions. Often I think they’re relatively boring precisely because I know so many people are about where I am on issues. What I get from reading posts here is that you feel that taking a simple, internally consistent ideological code and applying it to every possible question makes you a purist of some sort. You like the distinction of this minority view – and it’s even more of a distinction for the Austrian libertarians on here because the Austrian school is so chic and relatively unknown.
Re: “It’s a rhetorical tactic to categorize both sides of an argument as “extreme”"
What you don’t even seem to realize is that your “side” and this communist “side” that keeps getting mentioned aren’t even a real “side of the argument”. That’s a figment of your imagination. Neither libertarians nor communists have a real seat at the table – you know why? Because Americans largely reject those ideologies. I’m sure to you it would seem like anyone is trying to broker a compromise solution, but that’s because the whole damned discussion is going on between the two extremes that YOU consistently identify as being relevant, not me. It’s not that I find libertarianism and communism to be two extremes that I want to broker a compromise between. I see them as two curiosities of intellectual history that I enjoy engaging every once in a while, each of which have interesting and valuable perspectives, but not practical perspectives. If any compromise is going to be brokered, in my mind, it’s going to be a compromise between the various factions of political liberalism – libertarianism and communism don’t really even come into the picture. I didn’t come here trying to arbitrate between libertarianism and communism – you guys are the ones that always identify those extremes and always consider them relevant.
>>Most of the world is in “the middle” precisely because they can see value in both sides of an argument.<<I have a different take on this; I think it is because most people have a lack of exposure to the classical liberal side of the argument.>>It’s always about tradeoffs. In a world of tradeoffs, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that corner solutions aren’t always the best solutions.<<No kidding! What most of us here ask is why many (most) solutions really need to be formulated by the collective. Why can’t individuals make more of their own solutions by way of their own internal tradeoff processes?>>I don’t see any praiseworthiness or sophistication in these middle positions. Often I think they’re relatively boring precisely because I know so many people are about where I am on issues.<<So, then, what is your motive for trying around these parts?>>What I get from reading posts here is that you feel that taking a simple, internally consistent ideological code and applying it to every possible question makes you a purist of some sort. You like the distinction of this minority view – and it’s even more of a distinction for the Austrian libertarians on here because the Austrian school is so chic and relatively unknown.<<Ah yes. Internally consistent to the ideals of liberty. Thank you, Kuehn. In those instance where I find myself at odds with the side of liberty, I do try to reflect on why I’m not there yet. Many times someone makes a persuasive case and I begin to see where my old beliefs should be rejected. Sometimes I continue to find myself at odds. In all cases, I try and spread my ideas to those people who I know have not had exposure to them. I, for one, do not want libertarian views to be the minority view so as to retain their chicness.>>Neither libertarians nor communists have a real seat at the table – you know why?<<You are flat out wrong about the communists. For libertarians, it’s an exposure issue. Too many children have been well indoctrinated in our public schools…to the point where communist views are considered ‘progressive’.>>I see them as two curiosities of intellectual history that I enjoy engaging every once in a while, each of which have interesting and valuable perspectives, but not practical perspectives.<<Once in a while? And yes, liberty can be pesky and impractical for collectivist, central-planning thinkers.>> I didn’t come here trying to arbitrate between libertarianism and communism – you guys are the ones that always identify those extremes and always consider them relevant.<<Do you sometimes forget where you’re at?
Re: “I think it is because most people have a lack of exposure to the classical liberal side of the argument.”
You mean libertarian, don’t you? Let’s not pretend the two are one and the same.
>>Most of the world is in “the middle” precisely because they can see value in both sides of an argument.<<
See, taking an internally consistent ideological position that man is born free and has inalienable rights is too extreme for Dan. No. To balance that and make his position more accepted by the ivory tower "intellectuals" he must also see the value in some people being able to use other people for their own purposes. Slavery, is morally wrong, of course. But, partial slavery….now, that's the intellectual middle ground the Daniel Kuehns of the world advocate. Can't really call it slavery because you're not picking cotton on a plantation, but you can't really say you're all that free either. Keep messing with that recipe until it's exactly to your liking.
Is this where you are going to tell me that I am wrong about the two labels being synonymous? Okay. I meant libertarian then. But weren’t you the guy who wasn’t big on labels just several days ago? Selective pet-peeving?
The whole point of “not being big on labels” is that it obscures what people really think – that’s my pet peeve. When you label someone you’re arguing with a “socialist” it obscures their position. When you label yourself something like a “classical liberal”, it obscures your position by downplaying the parts of your argument that others in the liberal tradition find problematic. Labels are just words – there’s nothing inherent in labels that bothers me. It’s how they’re used. But by all means – make a case that you’re a classical liberal. I certainly think of myself as one – and I’m sure you’d disagree with me on that.
Ignore the ’1 person liked this’ – that was me, I pressed the wrong button.
“I s’pose when government tried to abolish slavery they cause a mess of ‘unintended consequences’.”
Try re-reading what Seth said, it’s really quite simple: Government is there to protect individual liberty. Period. Slavery violates the most fundamental human right so no classical liberal/libertarian would be against abolishing it.
What would they think if they could look at the current federal government?
Did they foresee an American Empire with military bases in over 100 countries?
Perhaps the pessimistic (realistic?) ones could forsee. I personally think none would approve.
I have come to the conclusion that American “democracy” has resulted in a situation where citizens serve foreign policy rather than vice versa.
Efforts at representative self-government has merely produced another entrenched oligarchy.
Human psychology acting through political dynamic does not permit actual self-government in a meaningful sense.
The hierarchy is supported by the vote, but is otherwise not significantly affected by the vote.
Representative government is a collective form and is antithetical to the concept of “self”.
ditto
Maybe but for some reason I just can’t understand it, even if it is all for power. I mean take a typical college kid that says they hate corporations and greed and capitalism….but is going to college in order to make alot of money. Or the same kid that hates capitalism but loves ebay. Is it just plain ignorance?
You’ve got a point. It’s as if they want it both ways. They want markets as long as they win. Then when someone else wins they want the government to step in and make things “fair”.
These are usually the same people who like to say “We are government”, and they believe that empowering the government empowers the people.
They just need a little deprogramming. For some it takes the form of having a family, for others it takes the form of being mugged.
I think you take for granted just how much you think about economics, capitalism, and just plain thinking in general. What I find are a lot of people who are quite good thinkers, they just haven’t thought much at all about this issue. Anybody, no matter who you are, will not know much nor care much about a topic if they haven’t had an experience to cause them to care and then start to research it further. Our job is to continually educate people and to ask good questions that get them to think and not assume.
Perhaps the best way is to get everyone to own a business. Whole Foods founder John Mackey was a self-professed “democratic socialist” as a collegian. He turned libertarian when he opened his first store and was barely making any money while being accused by employees of paying too little and by customers of charging too much.
OH I agree, I only got interested in Economics thanks to Obama’s stimulus. Everything I’ve read and learned about Econ has been over the last 11 months, but there wasn’t anything in particular that personally affected me, that got me interested. Very badly worded sentence I know. It’s really not that hard to learn about Econ though, or history.
I put most of the blame on the State, especially state run education.
Just think about all the incentives the State has to keep people economically ignorant? Think about what would happen to the dollar if the masses knew how bogus CPI is as a measure of inflation…hell think about how fucked the Feds would be if people even understood prices, and how they work and the information they convey. In my view, the State wants to keep the people fat, dumb and happy. So far they have succeeded, most of the country has no clue what is going on and doesn’t care to learn.
That goes back to my previous thoughts about the college kid, is it ignorance or do they willfully put blinders on their eyes?
Then maybe people would realize how shitty our tax code is as well.
” Labels are just words”
Astoundingly deep.
The point is to keep the money here in the United States rather than sending it to the middle east. The “we” is the same “we” that just bailed out the banks and criminals on wall street.