Good and Bad--by what standard?
An interesting exchange takes place in the comment thread on Prof. Anderson's article about food deserts. One participant contends that Anderson's article shows that the market is "bad" at providing a reasonable and balanced lifestyle.
This raises an important question that every pundit, scholar, and observer should ask: "bad" by what standard? What are the alternatives, and will they work? History testifies in favor of the market and against the state: Americans are as well-fed as they want to be, and when Chairman Mao tried to improve on food production and distribution by socializing it, over 30 million people starved to death.
If we're interested in real-world comparative political economy (as opposed to comparing the market outcome to nirvana), the free market is clearly "better" than the alternatives.
Comments (4)
You seem to be conceding the point that "food deserts" are an indication of a failure of the free market that could be corrected in an ideal economy. I disagree. The dearth of amenities such as grocery stores and theaters in sparsely populated areas is an example of markets doing exactly what they're supposed to do--allocate resources efficiently.
For various reasons--cheap housing, privacy, scenery--some people prefer to live in sparsely populated areas. But there are tradeoffs. It takes resources to build, stock, and staff stores and other such establishments, and they can't benefit from the same economies of scale in rural areas that they do in cities and suburbs.
If people who choose to live in rural areas reap all of the benefits of country life, why should society at large bear the costs? To do so would only encourage more people to choose to live in economically inefficient ways.
It's fascinating that the left, which usually complains about suburban sprawl, is now bellyaching about the economic forces that encourage people to live closer together.
In short, the status quoque argument--if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor--is valid, but not necessary. The market didn't do anything wrong.
Published: July 21, 2004 7:25 AM
The market IS bad at providing a "reasonable and balanced" lifestyle. That is not its job. The market efficiently meets people's desires based on their subjective utility. The state is worse when it indirectly tries to penalize what it thinks is a bad desire either indirectly, (why are cigarettes taxed, but no excessive taxes on gambling or condoms or other contraceptives and abortion), or directly by trying to ban the activity.
And I don't think it is "good" that people overeat and end up in bad health (which cause them to call for the state to pay for the effects of their vices) and that they die early. I don't understand people thinking misery and mortality as being good even if they are self-inflicted but unintended consequences of free choices. I can call the choices bad because they produce bad results. Just because they are free and the market provides for them doesn't make the choices good.
I would normally point to the church and family as the key institution which attempts to set the desires (utility) in their proper order. They don't always succeed, but before we became regulatory, we merely had a lot of hypocrites - hypocracy being the compliment vice pays to virtue.
When we had more freedom, people had vices. Lots of them. And the market provided for them. But they were correctly identified as vices, not a pretend virtue that the state had to protect or the media applauded as an equally valid alternative. The market for vice was smaller and many people decided to satisfy benign or benificent desires because of shame associated with the vice.
Just as contemporary corporations are friends with the state to eliminate competition, at some point the sin industry realized that they had to change their image (their nature is fixed in natural law). They did, but people are less free - You are not free if you are a slave to a viceous desire or addiction even if you get pleasure. This is the same bargain the modern state makes - become our slave and you will have a cushy life.
Ben Franklin spoke a lot of virtue, as did the other founding fathers who pointed out the state was minimal because the people were responsible.
Today, Americans eat to excess, but instead of ordering their desire for food and rest v.s. exercise, they look outside themselves for someone to blame. Neither the market nor the state can change the nature of gluttony or sloth into a virtue, nor do they have any competence in dealing with it and cause more harm when they try.
But the institutions which are competent to address this are ignored or laughed at, even in discussions about liberty. People need to realize that they ought to choose "the better angels of our nature".
If everyone freely chooses to be an animal, you will end up with a jungle or a zoo - depending on whether there is a zookeeper.
Published: July 21, 2004 9:45 AM
"The state was minimal because the people were responsible."
No, the state will be minimal when people realize the benefits of a minimal state:
- Less coercion (You decide how to spend your money, not some bureaucrat.)
- Less politics and the consequent animosity. (Politics results from various groups vying for stolen property (tax revenue). The outcomes are seldom 'fair'.) Example: Your tax dollars are used to buy off false testimony (Ahmed Chalabi), to bribe other countries to join us in Iraq, to overthrow a country that never posed a threat to us, to give no bid contracts to Haliburton (Cheney's cash cow), and to provide a soap box for the group that was responsible for all of the former. Who would willingly participate in this?
- More wealth (including health, education, leisure, and material well being). Government redistribution of wealth provides incentives to individuals to engage in politics (to lobby for keeping one's wealth, getting a piece of other's wealth, or vying for government grants or contracts (often via bribes)) rather than production/service.
If someone has an addiction, they can
1. enjoy it, (if the benefits outweigh the costs)
2. overcome it themselves,
3. overcome it with the help of other former addicts,
4. overcome it with the help of self-selected experts, or
5. have others end it for them if and only if the addiction leads to violation of the rights of others.
Published: July 21, 2004 10:45 AM
I think that widespread obesity, rather than being a "market" outcome, might actually be the result of state intervention in the agricultural industry. (as well as fed policy - shortening time horizons and encouraging massive levels of consumption in general) It is often overlooked how deep and far-reaching "agricultural policy" is in America.
In a free market, I would expect that the price of more fattening foods would increase as the demand for them grew, moving people to eat less of them, marginally.
Most positive-feedback mechanisms in our society are linked, one way or another, to the state. Then, of course, that gives the state an excuse to provide countervaling interventions to curtail the effects of their earlier interventions.
Published: July 21, 2004 2:50 PM