New Book by Bryan Caplan
This non-Austrian has just published a book seeking to elucidate why free voting so regularly emplaces harmful economic policies, or officeholders who favor them.
The book is reviewed by Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education, whose Web site doesn't include a blog. So I thought I'd announce the book on this blog (as I've been doing lately) and voice my own opinion on the matter, which I proclaim totally innocent of any wisdom I might have gained by reading Caplan's book.
I think much voting on economic measures is based on perceptions (usually erroneous) of their effects on the "gap" between rich and poor. I believe the rich are much less concerned by this gap than the poor, but I also believe that a voter could view himself as comparatively rich as to the effects of one measure (say, the minimum wage) and comparatively poor as to another (say, estate taxes).
I believe "the poor" (as defined above) are prone to voting to hurt themselves when they perceive that it may hurt "the rich" more. This is an envy-driven dog-in-the-manger philosophy, and the reason "the rich" aren't as prone to being influenced by the gap is not that they are in any way morally superior to "the poor," but because envy is always and everywhere an upward-directed attitude - one always compares oneself enviously with one's betters rather than with one's inferiors.
There.
Comments (6)
Stranger
I don't think it's a matter of trying to hurt those they envy. It's easily explained by time preference. Sure, nationalizing the oil industry would make the economy weaker and the nation poorer in the long run. But in the short run, I get cheap gas.
It's a time preference choice. The masses want something now and the politicians are more than pleased to oblige, and who the hell cares about tomorrow?
Published: June 2, 2007 6:36 AM
David C
I used to be on the side that democracy is trouble, because the rights of the individual always supersede the rights of the mob. But one thing that is causing me to reconsider is the strong libertarian bias that I see on the internet.
The theory goes like this: individuals have a built in nature to love liberty and make it in their best interest to look out for other peoples best interest, but they often fail to do so because of imperfect information and biased influences. As society enters the information age, information becomes more encompassing, harder to control, and less one-way biased. It becomes easier for people to understand that if the "rich" don't have liberty, they will have even less. They will therefore statistically act and vote libertarian to protect and secure their interests.
This would also explain the completely massive support for Ron Paul on the internet compared to off-line, and how communist biased sites and articles don't seem to do too well compared to libertarian biased ones.
Published: June 2, 2007 10:56 PM
Lecter
It should be interesting to note that most pro-market politicians from the third world such as eastern Europe and Asia are also those puchising for democracy most. For example, Estonia's Mart Laar and Mongolia's Elbegdorj. Because people from those regions already live through and realized the failures of socialism, and that's why they dont have similar conflict between market and democracy.
Democracy is not the problem, ignorant peoples are the actual problem.
Published: June 3, 2007 5:53 AM
Mathieu Bédard
I haven't read Caplan's book either, but I'm doubtful that envy is the first economic concern amongst voters. I think voters want to improve their situation, yes, but concerns on how to do that, at who's expanse, only comes in much later.
Published: June 3, 2007 10:01 AM
Zach
People are fools. News at eleven.
Published: June 3, 2007 10:50 AM
The Burbank Lawyer
It is certainly refreshing to see someone with Caplan's background write with such prose and insight. I look forward to his next book.
Published: July 29, 2007 12:20 AM