Image credit. A question of which system is better adapted to which task.
Law of Markets argues:
With QE we are not talking about troubled assets or dealing with an emergency. It is just straight out inflation.
Second, inflation has now come to mean rises in prices when once it meant printing money. The Keynesians switched the terminology to movements in prices in the 1930s so that their policies would no longer be immediately described as inflation (discussed in the 2nd ed of my Free Market Economics [FME2] pages 406-408). But let’s not quibble about this. What ought to be understood instead is that the effect of inflating the money supply to fund public spending has a number of possible effects of which higher prices is only one. Without militant unions and continuous labour market pressures to push wages up, inflation in the form of price increases is subdued. And whatever else may be the case at the moment pretty well everywhere, only those in very protected environments are in the mood to be pushing for significantly higher wages that would put their jobs at risk.
The real issue is that the way in which the re-direction of expenditure to the public sector is and will continue to manifest itself in a crumbling capital stock (see FME2: p410). The economy of the United States is falling to bits. It will take a longish time since it has a massive asset base but it is being eroded fast enough, which is evident in the median income data and elsewhere.
Is this view in conflict with what Arnold Kling - in The Segmented Wealth of Nations (see especially the paragraph at the bottom of the post) - identifies as the sources of crisis and contemporary economic change? I don't think so.
For a reminder why shifting toward public sector provision of goods and services is a decision for high cost production, take a look at Government - High-Cost Producer.
The US economy has a competitive intensity problem, and [a] decline in startups is at its core. Startups are the straw that stirs the drink. They generate new innovation (and new jobs) and force incumbents to improve or die. They change everything, creating a healthier, more vibrant economy in the process.
In the US economic ecosystem, startups are wolves. And we need more of them, and the creative destruction they bring, to transform our stagnating economy.
One of the biggest problems worldwide is the absence of state structures capable of protecting economic liberty. Hernando de Soto claims that about 2/3 of the world population are affected by this bad state of affairs. It is incumbent upon those who are conscious of the value of liberty to promote the liberal state in the Third World - and, of course, as the below article shows, at home as well. Free markets do not just happen, they must be politically fought for and defended. Once again: the state is important for liberty, and so is politics.
Writes Mark J. Perry:
In today’s WSJ, Hernando de Soto argues that the cure for terrorism in the Middle East is capitalism, economic empowerment, and private property rights to help rescue “extralegal entrepreneurs” who have become trapped in their own countries as “economic refugees” by cronyism and burdensome over-regulation of market activity. Here’s an excerpt of “The Capitalist Cure for Terrorism” (emphasis mine):
It is widely known that the Arab Spring was sparked by the self-immolation in 2011 of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian street merchant. But few have asked why Bouazizi felt driven to kill himself—or why, within 60 days, at least 63 more men and women in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also set themselves on fire, sending millions into the streets, toppling four regimes and leading us to today’s turmoil in the Arab world.
These suicides, we found, weren’t pleas for political or religious rights or for higher wage subsidies. Bouazizi and the others who burned themselves were extralegal entrepreneurs: builders, contractors, caterers, small vendors and the like. In their dying statements, none referred to religion or politics. Most of those who survived their burns spoke to us of “economic exclusion.”
In an interesting complement to de Soto, George Will makes a similar argument in today’s Washington Post that America’s “teeth-whitening entrepreneurs” are being denied the right to earn a living, and have become “economic refugees” in North Carolina because of cronyism capitalism, protectionist rent-seeking, and the burdensome over-regulation of market activity. Here’s an excerpt of “Supreme Court Has a Chance to Bring Liberty to Teeth Whitening” (emphasis mine):
On Tuesday, the national pastime will be the subject of oral arguments in a portentous Supreme Court case. This pastime is not baseball but rent-seeking — the unseemly yet uninhibited scramble of private interests to bend government power for their benefit. If the court directs a judicial scowl at North Carolina’s State Board of Dental Examiners, the court will thereby advance a basic liberty — the right of Americans to earn a living without unreasonable government interference.
“The best way to get Keystone XL built is to make it irrelevant ...”
From the Canadian perspective, Keystone has become a tractor mired in an interminably muddy field.
In this period of national gloom comes an idea -- a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta’s isolation and America’s fickleness? Canada’s own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia.
Instead, go east, all the way to the Atlantic.
The source, including a useful synoptic map of the new pipeline project.
The intellectual standards of academics nowadays! Fred Block refers to capitalistic freedom as the "the Robinson Caruso [!!!] freedom", at time mark 09:43, if you care to watch this not-a-must-see-interview, and immediately goes on to explicate:
The freedom of some people to make a lot of money has a lot of consequences for the lack of freedom for other people who then have to work in Wal-Mart at low wages or whatever ...
I quote this excerpt not because I am particularly eager to point you to the interview. For the purpose of this post, I am solely concerned with a widely held attitude resonating in Block's pronouncement, which is congeneric with a rather popular argument that never fails to annoy me for being immensely absurd and hypocritical.
What I have in mind is the subliminal idea that there is a special class of people with a duty, call it the E-duty, as basic as the most elemental personal rights, to create opportunities for safe, durable and satisfying employment for another class consisting of people that are either not willing to or not capable of providing employment to anyone, while at the same time being fully exempt from the E-duty.
When people attack, say, "capitalist swine X" for laying off employees or not paying wages deemed sufficient by their recipients, I ask the accusers why it is that they do not provide these workers with employment at agreeable wages? In not even trying to provide jobs, are the accusers not being even more egotistical than "capitalist swine X"?
Apparently, it is perfectly virtuous for employees not to even begin to create employment and a flow of income to the employed, while the same inability or unwillingness in employers is being considered a moral failing of the severest kind.
If the accusers thought matters through, they would find that the non-employing employee would by definition have to be regarded as being morally more base than the employing employer, who at least provides some employment and some income for others.
At The Library of Law and Liberty blog, Michael S. Greve has an intriguing post on "The German Connection". After the collapse of the Third Reich, there was a thorough rejuvenation of the rule of law (Rechtsstaatlichkeit) in Germany, the substantive notion of the rule of law being strongly committed to liberal (European meaning) principles. At a time when progressives continued in renewed waves to turn over the liberal conception of the rule of law in the US, German courts would stubbornly and successfully defend the newly regained liberal legal regime in Germany.
In the late 1960s, courts and then Congress institutionalized so-called “citizen suits” against government agencies. Unlike regulated parties, citizen plaintiffs don’t have at stake anything you’d recognize as a right; they represent broad, widely shared values. (Environmental groups are the prototype.) The idea was that agencies were routinely “captured” by regulated industries, so there had to be a counterweight—parties with legal entitlements to make executive branch agencies obey the purposes of Congress, as embodied in statutory law. To that end, statutory citizen-suit provisions typically authorize “any citizen” to sue the administrator for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty. So when the statute says that the Environmental Protection Agency “shall” regulate and the agency falls short, environmental groups have a cause of action. They’re equal participants in the agency rulemaking process and in court.
At that time, what was then West Germany was also discovering the issue of protecting the environment. People were apoplectic about pollution. Nuclear reactor sites had to be protected with paramilitary force. A Green Party was beginning to form. And, some lefty law profs trooped to Harvard, learned about citizen suits, and tried to import them into their own country. They penned learned articles about the “enforcement deficit” in environmental law, wrote model statutes, and proclaimed that even Amerika has citizen suits, the better to promote law and democratic participation. Why can’t we have that?
Because you can’t, the West German legal establishment responded. The key argument against citizen suits was not that they would disrupt orderly administration, or invite abuse, or overload the courts. It was: what you people are advocating is Nazi jurisprudence. We’ve thought and worked for decades to get rid of that garbage, and you’re not going to undo our accomplishments just because people get upset about—well, garbage. The citizen-suit trial balloon soon shared the Hindenburg’s fate. There’s no trace of the debate in administrative law to this day.
To be absolutely clear, I am not calling U.S. public interest groups and citizen-suit advocates Nazis. My point is that a legal instrument that well nigh everyone stateside accepted, often with great enthusiasm, went down in flames over there, as an intolerable assault on a liberal legal order. To rehearse the German professoriate’s key argument against citizen suits:
The point of law and especially administrative law (they said) is to protect rights against coercive state interference. To that end, we have independent courts that will perform de novo review on law and facts. If we want to keep that up, we must limit the courts to rights protection. They can’t review the legality of governmental conduct outside that context. A plaintiff who sues for that purpose is asking the court to command the performance of his private idea of how public authority ought to be exercised, and that’s not a right he has or courts can enforce. Likewise, it’s not the business of courts to make government and law more “democratic.” There are institutions, such as political parties and parliaments, to safeguard democracy and participation. Courts, in contrast, guard rights—if need be, guard them against democratic demands.
If you want to mobilize courts as engines of law-enforcement and democracy (the argument continues), they can’t be independent. If you want them to do the will of the people, go make them instruments of that will—and stop the pretenses about individuals’ rights.
Germany took that path once: in 1934, the Reichstag authorized a version of the allgemeine Buergerklage—the general citizen suit. It did so for obvious reasons. The inherited Weimar bureaucracy might not always enforce the new authorities’ race laws with the requisite speed or resolve. What was needed were actions by private informers or Citizens United for the Separation of Jews and State to enhance public participation and ensure obedience to law. That meant, however—and alongside the enormities recorded by history—the end of an independent judiciary. You cannot surrender the exercise of law to “democracy,” nor can you surrender the Staat to a “movement.” Not if you want to have a liberal Rechtsstaat and a judiciary that is institutionally disposed to protect rights.