Listening to the talking heads on the Sunday news shows and the political hot air out of Washington, D. C., you would continue to be believe that the current economic crisis is all a product of capitalism and “evils” of the free market.
Last week I delivered a public lecture at Northwood University, where I am now a professor of economics, on “Economics, Freedom,and the Current Economic Crisis.” I detail how it has been government monetary and interventionist policies that have created the economic crisis we are in, and why a return to a truly free market is the only lasting and sustainable way to overcome the current recession.
For those who get very pessimistic about the current political and economic trends — and who does not suffer from such moments of pessimism — we need to remember Ludwig von Mises’ reminder that “trends can change.” They have changed in the past, and they can and will change in the future.
The very contradictions and inconsistencies in all forms of interventionism and statism in general means that it cannot prevail permanently. A few years ago I wrote a piece on, “Freedom and the Pitfalls of Predicting the Future,” in which I pointed out that trends that seemed “inevitable” eventually turned out not to be so.
They will change again, and, hopefully, in the direction of freedom, if only we have the courage and the determination to defend what we know to be true.
Richard Ebeling
{ 15 comments }
I completely agree with your blog and the “Pitfalls” article. What worries me now is that in the US we are so evenly split between the folks who fearfully follow the path to servility and statism under our current regime and the folks who really seem to understand about freedom and capitalism. I had a friend for dinner who is a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and is so enamored with President Obama and the re-distribution of wealth through taxation that it takes my breath away. What will it take to reverse this trend? Do we as a nation have to “bottom out” like an alcoholic to come to our senses?
“trends can change”
____
Yes, trends can change… within days or centuries. Things can also get much worse, rather than better.
The nation could rapidly slide into authoritarian rule and loss of our remaining economic freedom.
Vague hopes toward optimism do not seem a particularly helpful economic strategy at this point.
Is there something of current, factual substance prompting expectation of “a truly free market” within the next 30 years (?)… or even a halt to the strong American trend toward socialism ?
Pessimists seem exceptionally correct about death & taxes; Keynes had a similar long-run view.
I think there is very little reason for optimism about the U.S. The politicians, even if they wanted to, cannot see a way out of this box other than print, print, print (how nice computers are – just change a couple of bits and accomplish the same thing – no precious forests destroyed). The question now is about individual survival, and that won’t be easy. Hopefully, the ideas of von Mises, supported by this institute, will survive and find more fertile ground in the future.
Don’t worry about survival. The french will send cheese and the English will send biscuits.
I’m pessimistic too. I think we are far from changing the general trend. Maybe frontal attack just doesn’t work in politics… One has to find new ways of explaining things.
But look at Germany today!? I’m opening a bottle of champagne (not that I voted) because the classical liberals (FDP) did come out as the true winners of this last legislative period. The German population has learned something from WW2 perhaps…
Of course the left is strong as ever (Communists Socialists Greens all together) but disorganized. Cheers.
“Economics, Freedom,and the Current Economic Crisis.”
dead link
Optimism and pessimism is only as good as the action they incite. Trends can and do change, but political trends are not fast changing. The trend for the US is ominous, but who cares? Only two groups: those who believe there is something special about the US, and those who feel like their freedom is slipping away.
There is nothing special about the US, and freedom is not what you thought it was. Your rights are inalienable, no government need defend them, no government ever could. Gangs of leeches can use state apparati to increase their consumption to levels that outstrip their production for only so long, but they can never manufacture consent.
Artisan,
Are the FDP really classical liberals, or are they neocons in disguise? Whenever neocons guys get in power, debt and spending go up faster than in a left-wing government.
“They have changed in the past, and they can and will change in the future.”
But I will not be there to benefit from it. So why should I be optimistic that future generations will enjoy freedom and prosperity but not me ?
It’s like saying to death sentenced that people outside prison enjoy life. Is that supposed to comfort him ?
Well, I find no comfort that future generations will enjoy a better “trend” than me.
Too bad for me.
Instead of talking about the future, what can we do now ?
Rhys,
“but they can never manufacture consent.”
The tragedy is that all too often, it’s the victims who manufacture consent.
At some point, you have to realize that the time for talk is over and you have to pay the full price of freedom.
@George
que serra serra…but frankly, I’m optimistic about Mr Westerwelle’s straightness (no pun intended) all along his career, even though the FDP’s got only 15% of the seats in parliament, so you can’t expect much anyways.
Still,
Westerwelle was the major critic of the German stimulus package, of the German cash for clunkers programs, of the post 9/11 hysterical restriction of individual liberties (though he did favor the presence of troops in Afghanistan). He criticized the business tax level and the VAT hike by Merkel in 2006, along with the State deficit.
He voted against the 2006 laws merging the secret service (BKA) with the regular German police into one single State dept. (which is a scary revival of the past : http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/572/488964/text/ )
QL: From a strategic point of view, how should libertarians act in order to promote freedom?
H.-H. H.: First of all, they must develop a clear class consciousness, not in the Marxian sense, but in the sense of recognizing that there exists a clear distinction between taxpayers (the exploited) and tax consumers (the exploiters). Politicians as agents of the state live parasitically off the labor of taxpayers. Accordingly, instead of admiring them or seeking their association, politicians (and the more so the higher their rank) should be treated with contempt and as the butt of all jokes, as emperors without clothes. The political class and their intellectual bodyguards, teachers and professors, must be delegitimized as self-serving frauds, and democracy in particular must be attacked as an immoral system in which the have-nots vote themselves the property of the haves. Political activities, if they are to take place at all, should be restricted to the local level and be motivated by decentralist or better still secessionist objectives.
I do my part … last election time the local tax-eater was glad-handing (in front of a govt monopoly liquor store no less) and I treated him with exactly the same contemptuous dismissal that I would use on any other annoying beggar. I didn’t actually say, “Get a job ya bum”, but I certainly tried to give that impression with my expression and body language. It’s a start.
Gold Bog – “At some point, you have to realize that the time for talk is over and you have to pay the full price of freedom.”
I agree. But consent is like demand. It is only demonstrable as action. Also, the price for freedom is individual responsibility. But that is my point – the government may try to alleviate from you the curse of freedom (responsibility), but it can’t. Ultimately, you are responsible for your consent and your action. You are responsible for your freedom. That is why I said – “Your rights are inalienable, no government need defend them, no government ever could.” If you think you haven’t paid the full price of your freedom, it is because you have allowed yourself to passively evade your own responsibility.
I am not saying ‘you’ as an accusation. I wanted to clarify my position. The government is not stealing our liberty, we are surrenduring it!
Rhys,
Responsibility is the price to pay to maintain freedom, but the price to pay to acquire freedom is much much much higher.
Rhys,
“The government is not stealing our liberty, we are surrenduring it!”
I totally agree and with Obama’s election, we even went a step further and willfully donated our liberty without even being asked for it.
Comments on this entry are closed.