Samizdata

This person at the Daily Caller appears – with some justification I might add – to take a dim view of Ron Paul, the US congressman and Republican primary contender for the presidential ticket known as “Dr No” on account of his saying no to various government measures and enterprises. He is, famously or infamously, a hardline anti-interventionist in foreign affairs, so much so that his views might be dubbed as almost pacifist. He has called for accountability by the Federal Reserve, and argues that institution ought to be closed down. But he has feet of clay, and this article I link to, which is written in a sort of furious burst of anger, focuses on those flaws and makes light of Paul’s merits. In particular, the article unfairly misrepresents the Austrian school of economics and its methodology. It also seems to smear libertarianism on issues like legalising prostitution and drugs, ignoring the obvious arguments that criminalising consensual acts has created huge costs for society.

All the way down at the bottom of a comment thread prompted by this article, is large item by commenter Michael P. Ivy. It is so good that I reproduce it here. There is the odd typo, but it is worth quoting in the raw:

I am always amused by wannabe economists, who call themselves capitalists, but, are unable to embrace or understand the true axioms of capitalism when push comes to shove. Austrian economics spins on essentially to axioms: (1) that there is no free lunch, and (2) all human action is purposeful action motivated by the individual’s (not society’s) desire to move from a less to a more desired state. These are self evident truths, much like the “more is preferred to less” axiom of the neoclassical school. You butcher Rothbard without understanding his work and particularly his crititique of the neo classical school of wackjob indifference curve analysis and welfare economics. The notion that an individual can be indifferent between two different states of the world without ever actually exercising choice is not a reliable basis for recommending redistribution measures of the Kaldor/Hicks kind. Even Samuelson so much as admitted that it is impossible to derive a social welfare function without making assumptions about the marginal utility of money et al (1951).

The problem with Keynes’ economics, is that it must rob resources from one sector of the economy to furnish another and it consumes resources in the process. Moreover, in doing so, the government does so without the knowledge of the benefits that those resources procure that only those individuals holding those resources…know. This is the problem with any measure of government involvement in economics. That they suffer from fiscal illusion (not my money so it don’t matter) is one thing, but, they effectively create an environment of uncertainty by destroying productive incentives. Incentives do matter after all and I have yet to see the mathematical models of the neo-classicals actually recognize this and quantify them. The fact is, is that you can’t unless you invoke a value judgement of the Keynesian/Samuelson kind.

Welfare economics has never worked and it never will work, for as M. Thatcher so plainly points out, “Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people’s money”. The statement captures two notions: (1) if their actually was a multiplier effect on GDP from government spending, don’t you think this would be a permanent line item of the government’s income/expense statement?, and (2) the No Free Lunch axiom is underscored by the fact that since government is an unproductive entity that consumes resources for its existence without actually creating anything of value is that eventually the productivity of the market is unable to keep up with and compensate for the unproductive actions of government. True capitalists understand this.

And if you think the market is unable to coordinate itself with respect to defense, innovation, policing of private property, mass transit, health, education, indeed all the things you think we require a central planner for, then you obviously have not bothered to school yourself on the opportunities that can and will present themselves if productive individuals are left alone and allowed to participate. Finally, I see that your article is riddled throughout with incorrect and obnoxious assertions about economic theory presented by Rothbard, Mises et al. (semi-autistic dogmatism). The fact is, is that there is nothing dogmatic about the Austrian school. Its core tenet is that the best production, exchange, and coordination of resources occurs when individuals are left free and unfettered to choose. And by whatever math you might care to invoke, given the level of debt ($16T) incurred by the Welfare State, I’d say you’re pointing the dogmatic finger in the entirely wrong direction. THAT is what is dogmatic….doing the same illogical, nonsensical thing over and over again (at the people’s expense), and expecting a different result every time. So before you decide to write another diatribe on someting you don’t know much about, I’d recommend that you review Rothbard…again, and in particular his piece on “Towards a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics”. There is nothing dogmatic, hairy scary or offensive about it.

Very good.

Ron Paul is very much a mixed bag, and I would not vote for him, and I am troubled by some of his views. But the fact has to be faced that almost unique in Western politics, he has put forward a classical liberal agenda on certain issues, and done so consistently. And he has managed, despite his age, to touch a lot of young people. There is a lesson here somewhere.

Instapundit, whom I revere for his relentless, industrial strength linkage (happy tenth anniversary Professor), has been in the habit, in recent times, of linking to pieces about how Americans are getting ever more disappointed by President Obama. But, as I am sure that Instapundit himself appreciates, the disappointment with Obama coming from Obama’s own former supporters is not because Obama’s preferred economic policies are now correctly understood by those ex-supporters to be disastrously destructive, but rather because Obama seems insufficiently determined and skilful in imposing these policies upon Americans who would prefer relatively sensible economic policies.

Obama’s leftist critics are not disappointed with Obama because they have come, reluctantly and through bitter experience, to share the opinion of his policies held by the Tea Party. Rather are such critics disappointed with Obama because he is not crushing the Tea Party, but instead haggling with them, and doing so, as these critics see it, with insufficient skill and nastiness.

Yes, Obama still seems to believe in the same daft policies that these leftist critics favour. But where is the passionate commitment to folly that he persuaded them he felt when he was getting elected, and that they still yearn for? Perhaps someone else (Hillary Clinton?), with greater energy, industriousness and human warmth, could lead America over the cliff with the proper amount of dash and determination, instead of Obama just leading the herd from somewhere in among it.

One should not, in short, confuse the fact – if fact it be – that President Obama is now being thought by ever more Americans to be doing a bad job, with the claim that all of America is coming to its senses in the matter of what it should do about its current economic woes, or what will happen to it, and to the world, if it does not do what it should do.