"Conservatives Should Oppose Corporate Welfare"
So I tell the right-wingers at Townhall. It's not just regular Joes (and Austrian economists) who oppose the Paulson bailout. Even Newt Gingrich was going nuts about it on Sean Hannity's show the other day. Anyway, an excerpt from my article:
The free market is a superior economic system to central planning. This superiority demonstrates itself during normal times but especially during an economic crisis, when resources must be rearranged before regular growth can resume. By embracing massive corporate handouts and other socialist measures, the Bush Administration discredits capitalism and delays economic recovery.
Comments (9)
Bill Jones
There is clearly no need for legislation to deal with this mess. Appropriate legislation already exists and was recently updated - in 2005- by the banks themselves.
It's called the bankruptcy act.
Published: September 27, 2008 1:38 PM
berenson
{"The free market is a superior economic system to central planning"}
______
...nice sentiment, but too academic for Joe-Sixpack.
WHY is a free-market superior (??) -- in simple terms your grandma would understand ?
Anyway, what does a "free-market" look like to the average American on the street ? Where would he go to take a look at one ?
Exactly WHY can't Joe-Sixpack trust all those experts in Washington... aren't they at least better than those greedy, private financial experts on Wall St ??
Gotta trust somebody on such a complex issue -- how da ya know which experts to listen to ?
Ya gotta communicate in a way average folks can understand and relate to.... professional politicians are good at that (of course, they're not hindered by having to be truthful).
Published: September 27, 2008 2:34 PM
Fred
Berenson has a point. Getting a truthful economic message out to Joe Six Pack is one big challenge.
Published: September 27, 2008 3:07 PM
Brad Spangler
Who would believe you if the language you're using doesn't even make sense? The whole point of what we're doing is trying to explain to people that the market IS NOT not free but OUGHT to be. Insisting on calling the existing economy (such as it is) "the free market"" is just shooting yourself in the foot. Worse still, it's intellectually lazy.
People CAN memorize stuff that doesn't make sense to them in order to later mindlessly regurgitate it on command, as the public school system occasionally proves. Few, though, will voluntarily choose to do so when they have no particular reason to do so. Those who have valiantly held on to a love of learning interesting new things *might* if what you're saying makes sense. Unfortunately, calling that which is NOT free "the free market" is precisely the wrong approach for roping THEM in. You'll set off their b.s. detectors. If you want people to learn something, phrase it in a conceptually consistent way.
Published: September 27, 2008 3:45 PM
Caveman (intellectually-speaking)
Brad makes a good point, the first thing we have to establish is that a "kinda" or "relatively" free market is not a free market. A free market is one in which consumers and producers mutually agree to the terms of a transaction without external interference. We don't have such markets in the US and until we do any criticism of the "free market" as applied to reality is invalid. Unfortunately, there aren't any real-world examples of truly free markets I can think of to point to for reference. Recent history, however, is replete with examples of state-controlled economies that collapsed under the weight of their own inefficiency. These should suffice to dissuade us from following a similar path.
Published: September 27, 2008 5:11 PM
Inquisitor
Well there are countries, like Hong Kong, that come somewhat near.
Published: September 27, 2008 6:06 PM
Fred
Following Inquisitor's lead, making known the story of Hong Kong's success would demonstrate the exceptional performance of a much less hampered market that started with a significantly poorer economic situation.
In lieu of Capitalism I suggest using Hampered Market in place of Free Market and Interventionism be used in place of Capitalism. And never refer to government policy, always refer to government intervention.
Published: September 27, 2008 8:37 PM
newson
to berenson:
i think people can easily taste the difference between central planning and laissez-faire.
ask anyone who's ever eaten at a state-run canteen whether they liked what they ate as much as a private restaurant.
Published: September 27, 2008 10:30 PM
Soren McMillan
I think that Lew Rockwell made a valiant attempt at constructing an argument that would appeal to the common man in his talk: "Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism"
Published: September 28, 2008 11:08 AM