This is the message of Jane Smiley, who takes time off writing prize-winning literature to explain that the idea of free markets is ridiculous and evil:
This is what leads people like me to feel that economists can hardly be so simple-minded as they appear — they must be spouting this junk just to suck up to tyrants. If there is an unregulated free market, then everything must be for sale, including lives, children, bodily organs, endangered species, the air we breathe, and the planet earth. The key thought here is that the free market puts all of these things up for sale, and quite often what the free market values little (the ozone layer, child sex workers), humans value very much. If an economist is on the side of the free market in this instance, then he is a fool or a monster. Or at least an ignoramus.
All these things, as we all know, ought to be owned by the State. If you disagree, you must be on the payroll of the machine:
Who’s paying these guys? One of the profound effects of economics in our day is that the people with the money and the power have embraced the guilt-free, external-less, everything-will-turn-out-okay-in-the-end philosophy of economics in order to justify their own evil works. And the economists, for the most part, have sucked up to that money.
{ 40 comments }
Once again, I’m convinced that one of the most important things an economist can teach is the subjective theory of value. That keeps people from saying such idiotic things as:
“quite often what the free market values little (the ozone layer, child sex workers), humans value very much.”
As if the value on the free market comes from somewhere OTHER than humans.
It appears to me that Jane Smiley is unaware of the consequences of collective action.
She is villainizing the individual. How could a group of evil individuals come together and do something for the common good? How could they enforce their “good” moral imperative without the use of force?
“The key thought here is that the free market puts all of these things up for sale, and quite often what the free market values little (the ozone layer, child sex workers), humans value very much.”
The free market is made of humans. To say that the market doesn’t value these things is to say that humans don’t value these things.
“This perennial cycle means that the workers can never afford what they produce, and so the market for their goods is always somewhere else.”
Yes, that is correct. If I paint a house, and thus, produce a “painted house” I do not get to own the house.
Even if there is more good produced than purchasing power attainable, it eventually leads to price deflation. That’s a race to the bottom I enjoy very much.
…
Reading some comments: “Shakespeare was a better economist than any of those fellows.”
Oh goodness.
This article has me aggravated. I can’t believe how many people there think Marx “had it all figured out”…except for a pricing mechanism-oops! haha! LOL Marxism failed. millions of people starved and homeless LOL oh well lets do it again
At my college, we have a sociology instructor who teaches a two-week “anti-economics” section in their class. It’s very similar to the mindless screed by Smiley. Perhaps they’ll try to outlaw the teaching of economics next.
Lucas: “As if the value on the free market comes from somewhere OTHER than humans.”
Excellent point. Socialists portray the market as a Godzilla like monster creating destruction and havoc. That’s how they get away with much of their nonsense. If they were forced to see the market as a place of interaction they would have to give up socialism.
Who is paying Smiley? Who is spouting ignorant nonsense using the capitalistic system to enrich herself? Uh oh…
Ignorance is pure bliss.
‘Free market’ is not ‘free-for-all market’.
Writes Jane Smiley: “…workers can never afford what they produce, and so the market for their goods is always somewhere else.”
Now, it cost me nearly nothing to read her column (what I pay my ISP, really). Would Ms. Smiley be interested in being paid nearly nothing for the words she wrote, then? Because that’s how much I had to pay to read what she said.
As Hazlitt said (paraphrasing), should we expect to pay a diamond producer what it costs to buy a diamond? Then again, Hazlitt never wrote Taming of the Shrew!
Jane Smiley? That sounds like the name of a drab, shapeless, blue-stocking intellectual from an Ayn Rand novel! The only one I’ve heard recently that fits the bill better is Margaret Drabble.
Would everyone who commented here please go and comment there? I read a few of the comments on her column and it gives me nothing but aggravation!
“If there is an unregulated free market, then everything must be for sale, including lives, children, bodily organs, endangered species, the air we breathe, and the planet earth.”
As an atheist, this sounds amazingly like the same non-sequitur rhetoric used by some anti-atheist theists. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard, “If there is no god, then there can be no morality. There is nothing to stop a person from committing murder or pedophilia, because such actions are no longer considered wrong.” What both these anti-atheists and Smiley-esqe anti-capitalists are unable to comprehend is that values originate from the individual, not from some Greater Power (be it god or the state).
Unfortunately, these people are often quite successful with their emotion-based arguments. Smiley’s hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, while all but devoid of reason or accuracy, is nonetheless powerful rhetoric that can sway the economically ignorant and reinforce the beliefs of the rabid anti-capitalists.
“If there is an unregulated free market, then everything must be for sale, including lives, children, bodily organs, endangered species, the air we breathe, and the planet earth.”
As an atheist, this sounds amazingly like the same non-sequitur rhetoric used by some anti-atheist theists. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard, “If there is no god, then there can be no morality. There is nothing to stop a person from committing murder or pedophilia, because such actions are no longer considered wrong.” What both these anti-atheists and Smiley-esqe anti-capitalists are unable to comprehend is that values originate from the individual, not from some Greater Power (be it god or the state).
Unfortunately, these people are often quite successful with their emotion-based arguments. Smiley’s hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, while all but devoid of reason or accuracy, is nonetheless powerful rhetoric that can sway the economically ignorant and reinforce the beliefs of the rabid anti-capitalists.
(Sorry for the double-post, there was a problem when I tried to submit it the first time.)
Giant Joe,
” I can’t believe how many people there think Marx “had it all figured out”…”
Hydrogen and Stupidity.
“oh well lets do it again”
See, since socialists want to do the same thing over and over again and always hope for different outcomes, then this is proof that socialists are stupid.
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
Lao Tsu
Hey, I LIKE that, “jc butte”. Ha ha, very happy you appreciate Lao Tzu; according to Rothbard, the world’s first libertarian. (that really pisses some people off when you say that)
- – - – - – -
@Andrew T,
Very good points. Statist justifications are very much like the worst calls for religion, and damned near identical, writ large, to 19th century justifications for the chattel enslavement of Black Americans. This leads me to your excellent point about Statist rhetoric: we need to work as hard on our rhetoric as so many have already worked on our economics, history and philosophy. We, the billions of us on the short end of the stick on the deal with the State (whether most of them know it or not) need a slew of people with the courage, righteous (non-violent) anger and skills of a Malcolm X.
Andrew: “I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard, “If there is no god, then there can be no morality. There is nothing to stop a person from committing murder or pedophilia, because such actions are no longer considered wrong.”
You misunderstand philosophy. It’s not that there can be no morality, but that without God there is no logical reason for morality. And it’s not just religious people who say that. All of the great atheist philosophers say the same thing. Atheist philosophers and religious philosophers completely agree on that point. Can you name a philosopher who doesn’t agree?
That quote is crazy-ignorant, but you would be surprised how often I encounter the same from otherwise well educated people. ;-(
Obviously Smiley doesn’t believe what she writes, otherwise she would be living on a commune right? Most self-described socialists are not actually socialists, but they simply espouse such nonsense to disarm others.
@mpolzkill “righteous (non-violent) anger and skills of a Malcolm X”
That part of your statement is at odds with itself.
Just my thoughts,
SOD
fundamentalist,
“Can you name a philosopher who doesn’t agree?”
Murray Rothbard?
The non-aggression principle isn’t a moral system and isn’t eminently logical in construction and beneficial in practice?
Why do you now have to attack the atheists, btw? I see no reason why theist and atheist libertarians should ever have cause to attack each other.
Also, if you need a “great” philosopher (is that famous?), Nietzsche had his own ideas about morals, but he certainly found both the “slave morality” and “master morality” he identified to be logical to the people who adopt them or are naturally attracted to them. I don’t think one can speak so definitely about these things anyway. To me, morals are mores, customs; and if one wants to live in Civilization it’s completely logical to adopt morals. What does God have to do with it? This is where you set people off. Are you saying YOUR complete and exact set of received morals have no logical reason for them? Maybe. Keep your god then and please leave true libertarians who happen to be atheist alone. (Andrew DID say “SOME theists”, he wasn’t making any blanket statements, so there’s no call here)
SOD,
What, anger and non-violence? One can’t be angry and non-violent? That would be news to me; I am. There is nothing in the common definition or etymology of the word “anger” that is necessarily related to violence. Well possibly the Latin: “angere”: to strangle, ha ha. But even strangling can be done non-violently. If all ignored the State, that would “strangle” D.C., for instance.
“I see no reason why theist and atheist libertarians should ever have cause to attack each other.”
Well said.
I’m a theist and I don’t believe in the notion of an objective morality. So there.
But this is a bit off-topic…
The best thing about that article (the one on huffpost, not this one) was the “Ads by Google” at the bottom:
Economics 101
Basic economics in accessable audio format. Buy MP3CD today!
Mises.org
“and quite often what the free market values little (the ozone layer, child sex workers), humans value very much.”
Humans value having child sex workers, while markets dont? That’s an… interesting statement. Then again, it does explain why we don’t see too many child prostitutes on the street.
“the idea of free markets is ridiculous and evil”
Humans are evil bastards! Let’s get a government to rule over them and control them… run… by… humans.
Yeah. Uh… Listen, guys, until we have a race of enlightened magical high elves to run a communist government, I think I’ll stay on the side you happen to be ad homineming against.
mpolzkill: “The non-aggression principle isn’t a moral system and isn’t eminently logical in construction and beneficial in practice?”
Rothbard and Hoppe’s ethical system is an example of the confusion that reigns in the field of ethics. The great atheist philosophers understood morals as universal. In other words, for something to be moral, it had to be moral for all people for all time. The only way that could happen is for someone with greater authority than man to provide the morality. Without a greater authority, then people were free to make up any morality they wished, or have no morality at all.
Thanks to the confusion caused by sloppy thinking, morality no longer means something universal; it merely means what someone chooses or rationalizes to be good for them or for society. Rothbard and Hoppe merely took advantage of the reigning confusion rather than trying to clarify things. Their ethical system is not and cannot be universal because simply because it comes from men. People can choose to follow it or not, but those who follow it have no grounds on which to criticize anyone who chooses not to follow it, nor do they have any right to discipline anyone who violates their ethic.
mpolzkill: “Why do you now have to attack the atheists, btw? I see no reason why theist and atheist libertarians should ever have cause to attack each other. ”
I was just responding to Andrew.
mpolzkill: “To me, morals are mores, customs; and if one wants to live in Civilization it’s completely logical to adopt morals.”
You are following the current fad with morals in terms of making them personal. But as I wrote above, if you’re willing to give up universal morals, then you have no right to condemn what Islamic terrorists are doing, or the mass murder of communists, or any of the other great evil groups of the 20th century. Their moral systems were just different from yours; you can’t claim that they were immoral in any way.
Seems that the morality issue (“that without God there is no logical reason for morality”) is phony. Morality is simply good interaction (good business) between people. For example, God (whomever she may be) is not needed to keep store shelves stocked; customers who pay for items rather than stealing items and/or trashing stores provide storekeepers with valid reason to be in business. If it were otherwise, we’ll still be in pre-civilization.
Thanks, Giant Joe.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
fundamentalist,
I suppose Nietzsche wasn’t a great atheist philosopher.
We ARE off topic. You took us off to call us all confused, faddish, immoral or condemned to darkness or whatever for not accepting your Truth. Fine, got it. If there’s more I need to know about my lostness and you can find a better forum for it, I’ll carry this on. If not, I’ll try to sum up as quick as I can: What, I can’t literally con-DAMN murderers in the name of God? OK, I don’t know what that means anyway. Everyone who would claim to be a member of Civilization whether atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, etc. condemns (pronounces judgment against) murderers. That is logical as we are here to live (I’m going to conjecture), Civilization is the vehicle by which we live and murder is detrimental to it, in fact diametrically opposed to it.
I haven’t given up anything I’ve never seen convincing proof of (“universal morals”). YOU need the concept, so keep them. There’s no quarrel and there is no issue here under libertarianism (unless your God tells you he needs your help enforcing the keeping of the Sabbath or something)
fundamentalist,
Oh, whenever God talk begins, I can’t help phasing out, so I missed something that could bring us back to Andrew’s point and thus back on topic:
“…moral for all people for all time. The only way that could happen is for someone with greater authority than man to provide the morality. Without a greater authority, then people were free..”
Hell yeah, we’re free to choose; we’re libertarians, this would REALLY suck without that. You just summed up what Andrew pointed out as so repulsive: authoritarianism. I say that your received invention is benign though (unlike the Commies much newer invention), because at least your dictator isn’t anywhere to be found doing anything.
Fundamentalist,
“You misunderstand philosophy.It’s not that there can be no morality, but that without God there is no logical reason for morality.”
No I think the philosophers you like misunderstand philosophy. Even with a go there is no morality because it merely boils down to the whim of the deity. That’s why we get religious texts where supposed merciful and just all powerful deities go around drowning children in global floods.
Another religious believer ethically crippled as a child to such an extent that he’s too incapacitated to recognize his own lack of moral judgment. You worship an imaginary tyrant.
Good for a chuckle, that obvious propaganda piece complete with government-payroll thread manipulators.
It is only the existence of government that makes the profession of economist necessary.
mpolzkill: “I suppose Nietzsche wasn’t a great atheist philosopher.”
Actually, I was thinking of Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, and the post-modern philosophers.
mpolzkill: “You took us off to call us all confused, faddish, immoral or condemned to darkness or whatever for not accepting your Truth.”
I didn’t call you anything. The atheist philosophers mentioned above, as well as theists, realize that there exists in every person a conscience that motivates them to moral action. Theists believe God put it there. Atheists think it resulted from evolution. If atheists are right, then as the atheist philosophers wrote there is no logical reason to follow it because it has even less authority over mankind than man made rules.
Yes, atheists can be moral people; they just don’t have any logical reason for espousing any kind of universal morality.
mozpkill: “Everyone who would claim to be a member of Civilization whether atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, etc. condemns (pronounces judgment against) murderers.”
That’s possible, but how they define murder could be very different. For example, murder might include only the killing of people in your tribe, or socialists.
I’m not talking about what people do. I’m talking about whether they have a logical reason for what they do. Anyone can invent a set of rules and persuade people to follow them. That doesn’t make them universal. And no, you can’t condemn a murderer on logical grounds. You can do so because you don’t like it, that’s all.
mopzkill: “I haven’t given up anything I’ve never seen convincing proof of (“universal morals”).”
I have a hunch that there are a lot of things you haven’t seen that exist nevertheless. It’s fine with me if you want to deny universal morality. All I was trying to point out is that without God no universal morality exists. In that you agree with the great atheist philosophers. But you might want to read those guys and see what else you have to give up if you want to be consistent with that position.
The problem with atheists in the West is that they enjoy the benefits of Christian morality. They just deny that Christianity had anything to do with it. You ought to try living somewhere else, some place that never absorbed Christian morality. What would you say to Hindus or communist Chinese who think it OK to kill female babies. Or Muslims who consider it an act of God to kill someone who converts from Islam? They have morals too. They’re just different from yours.
Whether you’re for or against abortion, if you’re old enough you remember when abortion was considered immoral. Now it’s a virtue. If there are no universal morals, then people are free to make up any morality they wish.
PS, In case you don’t want to bother reading the great atheist philosophers, I’ll sum up roughly their conclusions: since no universal morality exists, any man-made morality is nothing but slavery, so we should deliberately commit “immoral” acts, which are not really immoral, in order to assert our freedom.
Those philosophers thought it was important to act consistantly with your philosophy, or you are a hypocrite, which they considered to be a bad thing. Today, hypocracy isn’t seen as bad as it used to be, so people don’t mind being hypocrites so much.
Brian: “That’s why we get religious texts where supposed merciful and just all powerful deities go around drowning children in global floods.”
That really funny, you judging God. Of course you realize that if no universal morality exists, you have no grounds on which to judge God. You just have preferences that differ from his.
I’m moving this to the religious ghetto around here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010525.asp#comments
Yes, because human values play absolutely no role in human behavior; or, on the other hand, human behavior plays absolutely no role in markets. Perhaps she is claiming that if it weren’t for regulation, we would have no values, thus we need a central authority to establish what is right and wrong. Ha, someone spouting socialism calling free-marketers simple-minded.
As for the atheist proponents: my problem with atheism is it adheres to the same assumptions as anything else. Just as you propose there is no attainable evidence for the existence of a creator, the same may be said in reverse. I feel a Socratic approach is optimal: admit ignorance; you’re human, you can’t know these things.
Yes, because human values play absolutely no role in human behavior; or, on the other hand, human behavior plays absolutely no role in markets. Perhaps she is claiming that if it weren’t for regulation, we would have no values, thus we need a central authority to establish what is right and wrong. Ha, someone spouting socialism calling free-marketers simple-minded.
As for the atheist proponents: my problem with atheism is it adheres to the same assumptions as anything else. Just as you propose there is no attainable evidence for the existence of a creator, the same may be said in reverse. I feel a Socratic approach is optimal: admit ignorance; you’re human, you can’t know these things.
Comments on this entry are closed.