This all goes beyond caricaturing a school of thought that you're not immersed in. To some extent that happens all the time and is more or less forgivable as long as people are open to others clarifying and providing nuance. This seems to me to be well below even mises.org's already relatively low standards for comprehension of Keynesianism (which is not to say that there aren't mises.org commenters that do have a good grasp of Keynesianism of course). What is most disconcerting is that
WayneWilliam Anderson: "To answer Daniel, there is NOTHING in the Keynesian view that allows an economy to recover without government spending. Look at the theory; what would permit the economy to move back to full employment if the government does not "stimulate" it with more spending?
Tell me this: Does Krugman have ANY reason to believe that the economy could return to full employment EVER if the government does not act? I think that is a legitimate question. It is not enough to say that I am declaring an absurdity. Read Krugman and tell me if he believes that ANY economy can operate without lots and lots of government spending." [emphasis mine]
Daniel Kuehn: "William - You're the one making the undemonstrated claim. You can't claim Krugman thinks it would never recover, and when I challenge you on it and ask for times he said it would never recover then challenge me to find alternative incidents. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up.As for Keynesians - of course it can recover without government stimulus. Anything that shifts aggregate demand will do the trick. Real balance effects can do the trick. Wage declines can do the trick under certain conditions (not others). Capital obsolescence. A decline in liquidity preference. Hell, why not a simple black-box "return of animal spirits". Of course Keynesians think the economy can recover without the government - I'm a little suprised you didn't realize it.
The case is that under certain conditions the recovery will be slow, painful, rigid, and all unnecessarily so. The key here is "under certain conditions" - those conditions being a demand-driven recession like this one, not a supply-shock recession like we've experienced in the past.
Now - can you back up the claim that Krugman ever thought that the economy would never recover, or can't you?"
Lawrence Klein has the best line addressing Anderson's misconception:
"It is wrong to think that Keynes’ system fails if it cannot predict pessimistic results. The pessimism is not inherent in this system; instead the determinants behind the system make it operate either pessimistically or optimistically, depending on the current state of affairs in economic and non-economic life." (Klein 1966)
Posts
The biggest knock against Keynesianism is that like all totalizing systems it falls apart in actual practice when it meets culture. Thus I maintain that Keynes was a utopian systematizer; that sort of thinking has been roundly rejected in most other fields of human life since WWII.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with you on the pitfalls of totalizing systems - it's one of the biggest reasons why I reject libertarianism - but I'm not sure why you think Keynes is guilty of this.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism isn't totalizing; it opposes such.
ReplyDeleteBecause the more I read of his writings, etc. the more I see this constant theme. Centralized design by experts is definitely his shtick and he constantly goes to that well over and over again.
Keynes at least offers latitude for different policy approaches. For libertarians (understanding, of course, some variation within the ideology) usually have only one acceptable answer to any given policy question. That's what I call totalizing. It takes absolutely no account of variations across cultures and societies. There is only one answer.
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me the most is just how derivative Keynes appears to be; far from being someone ahead of his time, he was firmly implanted in a fairly narrow vision of human society as a machine which needed wise masters to control it. That was a common vision across ideologies at the time; which is why books like James Hilton's "Lost Horizon" (and Capra's movie version of it) were such huge hits in the 1930s.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians allow nearly anything ("anything that's peaceful"); all other ideologies are much narrower when it comes to the limits of human freedom, and Keynesianism is part of a mileau of ideologies that really do not take human freedom and agency as serious concepts. Apparently all you can do is look at this through the lens of ISLM and other such non-sense.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"For libertarians (understanding, of course, some variation within the ideology) usually have only one acceptable answer to any given policy question."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The "free market" is not the solution, it's what allows the solution to be developed by the entrepreneur.
Talking about characterization.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteBetter said than I. Thanks!
Wait a minute Xenophon - how in the world does Keynes not take human freedom as a serious concept?
ReplyDeleteAnd how does libertarianism, which demands severe restrictions on collective action, have some sort of advantage in the solutions it allows?
I'm sorry, but none of that makes sense.
They are different to be sure - they put restrictions in different places. But that doesn't mean that libertarianism doesn't have totalizing elements, and it certainly doesn't mean that Keynesianism is inconsistent with human freedom.
"...how in the world does Keynes not take human freedom as a serious concept?"
ReplyDeleteBecause centralized social control by elites was his modus operandi. Keynes the anti-liberal.
"And how does libertarianism, which demands severe restrictions on collective action..."
Libertarianism places no restrictions on collective action, except those who are not peaceful. All other ideologies use force and break this admonition. And let's just witness the nightmares these other ideologies have unleashed and continue to unleash as a result of their use of force.
This sums up the disastrous legacy of Keynes fairly well (one would swear by this result that he was a misanthrope, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/john-maynard-keynes-the-damage-still-done-by-a-defunct-economist/
Libertarianism does not rule out "collective action", as any group of individuals can collectively act voluntarily. Libertarianism is against forced collective action, where one group benefits over others.
ReplyDeleteAre you defining force here simply as a disequilibrium of benefit? I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteI've never been terribly impressed by the libertarian allergy to collective force in something like a government. One could just as easily say that the participation of a citizenry in such a situation (rather than revolution of some sort, or holing oneself up in a secluded compound, etc.) constitutes a voluntary collective action of governance. In this case, it strikes me that most self-identifying libertarians (i.e., all those not openly rebelling against or separating themselves from the government with which they disagree) are acting in a perfectly voluntary manner, and the "forced collective action" as bogeyman fails to present itself in any very substantial way.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteYes, we are all quite impressed with the fruits of this "collective force": http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/23/kathryn-johnston-a-year-later
I mean, after all, all we are really talking about is a bogeyman, right? Bogeymen don't leave 92 year old women dead in their own homes; the state does though.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there is nothing "voluntary" about the state; your comment would make a degree of sense if one could much more easily leave one state for another or no state at all. But since states do not work that way - indeed, since most states on the planet today will imprison you for trying to exit that state permanently (some of them will even kill you) - your point is moot. Even in the so-called free West the monopoly of force practiced by the state means that all one is doing is jumping from one monopolist to another. In other words, upon any sort of rational examination of the matter, the notion that it is "voluntary" falls away rather quickly. Which is of course why political philosophers who justify the state have to elide past or create rather elaborate and rickety mental frameworks to justify the state as a voluntary creation.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteOh, and I do find it rather strange and stupid that in order to be a real libertarian - and this is the essence of your rather moronic argument - that I have to risk my own life or completely separate from human society in order to be such (one wonders what my wife and child would think of such a choice). Anyway, I'm sure you made a similar argument against those who opposed the warrant-less wiretaps of the Bush administration. I mean, after all, they live in the U.S., so they "volunteered" to accept such ...
There are many, many interesting places that this argument of yours can go to.
Evan,
ReplyDelete"Are you defining force here simply as a disequilibrium of benefit? I'm confused. "
I'm not sure where the confusion stems from. We are defining force as an action by government that forces an individual to do something involuntarily, such as tax, regulation, et cetera.
Jonathan, my confusion came over this statement: "Libertarianism is against forced collective action, where one group benefits over others." I understand well enough the critique of force that you all are making (although, as I say, I'm not all that impressed by it). But are you here defining this force simply in terms of one group benefiting over another? I guess I would have thought of force less in terms of benefits and more in terms of violations, or restrictions, etc.
ReplyDeleteXenophon, your smattering of responses misses my point. As Daniel knows from past conversations, I'm quite open to pointing out how the modern nation-state is a structure in which we're trapped, and the lack of avenues for an emigration out of the state structure is probably the most striking example of this. I'm also happy (well, unhappy) to recognize that state force is often used in inappropriate ways, of the sort that would lead me to stand with the libertarians and demand more civil liberties. But none of this has much to do with my concern about libertarian systems. It' s not that I don't recognize collective force of the sort that you point out, what I said was that I'm unimpressed by your critique of it, and that to identify force in itself in such a... yes, totalizing... fashion as a systemic problem with non-libertarian political philosophies is to ask for people to dismiss you, because you're not taking into account the significant extent to which we act as a voluntary citizenry in relation to government force. This doesn't mean that one needs to be conceived of as signing a blank check by failing to revolt, but it does mean that a political philosophy that hopes to be at all compelling will take into account the lion's share of social life that operates in a perfectly non-violent, voluntary and cooperative manner.
ReplyDeleteOn this...
Oh, and I do find it rather strange and stupid that in order to be a real libertarian - and this is the essence of your rather moronic argument - that I have to risk my own life or completely separate from human society in order to be such (one wonders what my wife and child would think of such a choice).
I'm just working with what you've given me. I don't see how one can't read libertarian commitments outside of these terms, given the extent to which you have set down a rejection of the legitimacy of state force. Personally, I think there are plenty of coherent libertarian positions one might embrace in a more reasonable manner, but when libertarians attempt to defend their system on some such basic and definitional grounds, I don't think they leave themselves much room outside of the backwoods militia or the secluded bunker. But make no mistake... this is what I take to be the outcome of your conception of a "real libertarian". I have not claimed that this is what a real and viable libertarianism looks like.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"But are you here defining this force simply in terms of one group benefiting over another?"
I never did. But all government action necessarily benefits one group over another.
In any case, this concept of citizenry acting voluntarily with government seems more imaginative than realistic. That's not very impressive, as you like to say. And, well, as long as we're avoiding "totalizing" things, let's not say that all murder, or all rape, is bad.
"I never did. But all government action necessarily benefits one group over another."
ReplyDeleteOkay, that clears that up. Although I don't know what the point of bringing up benefit was if you're not connecting it with the force you mention in the first half of the sentence.
In any case, this concept of citizenry acting voluntarily with government seems more imaginative than realistic. That's not very impressive, as you like to say.
How do you figure? There's nothing imaginary about voting or paying taxes or filling our a census form or going to public schools, etc. What's unrealistic about that?
And, well, as long as we're avoiding "totalizing" things, let's not say that all murder, or all rape, is bad.
What? Huh?
Xenophon -
ReplyDeleteWhat does an out of control narcotics team have to do with what we're talking about?
This is another frustrating thing about libertarians. I don't support the drug war. You don't support the drug war. You throwing that at me as if it somehow speaks to my position makes no more sense than me mentioning it as a counter-argument to your position.
And in the same vein - note that we've moved not only to the drug war but also to warrantless wiretaps, rape, and murder.
ReplyDeleteWe started out at macroeconomic policy, let me remind everyone.
I, and I venture to say Evan, support a limited republican form of government with duties defined by a constitution and these duties limited to very specific issues where (1.) collective action is necessary, (2.) collective action is hard, and (3.) issues of fundamental justice are at stake. With that as our basis, how does it make sense to raise these issues of illegal surveillance or the drug war? We view that as an unjust exercise of force the same as you do.
Jonathan raises the issue of rape and murder. What if someone rapes another person? What is to be done? Is the use of force necessary against the rapist? By your definition it seems like it's not. The libertarian (by your definition) is bound to do nothing? But of course libertarians don't think rape laws should be wiped off the books. So clearly your problem is NOT the use of force - your problem is HOW we propose to use force. Presumably there are some things where we agree the exercise of collective monopoly over force is appropriate - like jailing a murderer. Other things we disagree on. But the point is we don't disagree on the use of force itself at all - we are all here wary of that. We disagree on when it's used - not whether it is ever used.
So if we disagree on when it's use - if it boils down to a question of circumstance - then why the hell are you talking about the drug war?
If you want to claim that the exercise of force by the state is illegitimate you have to be an anarchist or you have to accept the fact that there is inconsistency between your beliefs. A libertarian cannot base his worldview on a rejection of the use of force by the state because it is inconsistent unless he is an anarchist. But libertarians also hate to admit this because if they do they would be admitting that they are just one part of a wider spectrum of classical liberalism that is skeptical of the use of force by the state and advocates human liberty.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteNo, my "smattering of responses" directly addresses your point and eviscerates it.
Daniel,
"You throwing that at me as if it somehow speaks to my position makes no more sense than me mentioning it as a counter-argument to your position."
You're a defender of the state; therefore you have to take the so-called good with the bad. Anyway, it is more than an issue of an "out of control narcotics team."
"I, and I venture to say Evan, support a limited republican form of government..."
We've had that experiment and it failed; governments apparently never stay limited or republican.
"But libertarians also hate to admit this because if they do they would be admitting that they are just one part of a wider spectrum of classical liberalism that is skeptical of the use of force by the state and advocates human liberty."
Well, some percentage of libertarians declare themselves to be anarchists, so even if that is an issue (I don't think it is, but so be it), it is not an issue for them. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them.
Xenophon - I know some percentage of libertarians consider themselves anarchists. That's precisely why I said that libertarians who use that argument and are anarchists are perfectly consistent. That's why I specifically said that the problem is libertarians who don't consider themselves anarchists.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a defender of the state - you seem to be confused.
Yet, as you state, you support "a limited republican form of government..." ... sounds like a defense of the state to me.
ReplyDelete"That's why I specifically said that the problem is libertarians who don't consider themselves anarchists."
Actually, you didn't. Re-read what you wrote:
"If you want to claim that the exercise of force by the state is illegitimate you have to be an anarchist or you have to accept the fact that there is inconsistency between your beliefs. A libertarian cannot base his worldview [sic] on a rejection of the use of force by the state because it is inconsistent unless he is an anarchist. But libertarians also hate to admit this because if they do they would be admitting that they are just one part of a wider spectrum of classical liberalism that is skeptical of the use of force by the state and advocates human liberty."
There really isn't any acknowledgment here that _some libertarians_ are anarchists. Now if you had stated the following, your argument would have at least made some sense from the standpoint of typology: "But for libertarians who are not anarchists..."
Evan & Daniel,
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if you are interested in the libertarian project as a way to move away from the state, you can join the Seasteading Institute: http://seasteading.org/
No, my "smattering of responses" directly addresses your point and eviscerates it.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy you retain confidence in your views, I really am. But I didn't just say that you missed my point, I took the time to explain why I thought you did. You can't expect me to take this sort of declaration seriously until you engage with what I've said.
RE: "Yet, as you state, you support "a limited republican form of government..." ... sounds like a defense of the state to me."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you support a limited government too, I presume. You are not an anarchist - am I correct? Should I expect you to defend all possible states, or only the sort of state you support?
As for what I said about anarchists, my point that "unless he is an anarchist" introduces the condition, doesn't it?
By the way - "worldview" is acceptable as "world view" or "worldview".
How can you interpret that paragraph as anything other than a distinciton between libertarians who are and libertarians who aren't anarchists?
This is one of the common tropes of libertarians. For some unexplained reason they expect you to stand for and defend every political philosophy that is not theirs. Why?
ReplyDeleteIs it a slippery slope point? Perhaps - but whenever I make the point that a libertarian state would degenerate into gang-rule anarchy or crony capitalism they insist "but I don't support those things". It's important to be cognizant of slippery slopes, of course - but libertarians always hold a double standard on this.
And it's MORE than a double standard. It's an asymmetric double standard. Gang-rule anarchy and crony capitalism are both quite conceivable slippery slope results of libertarianism. Totalitarianism and communism are hardly conceivable slippery slope results of what I espouse. So why are libertarians constantly citing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?
The point re: anarchy is exactly what I was talking about with the bunker/revolution point above. And I agree that 1) any libertarianism that does not reduce to that (and that's fine) needs to be more open about other political philosophies of limited governance, and 2) as a slippery slope argument, it is much more modest than the sort of arguments that you two are making against non-libertarians (which ends up being less of a slippery slope argument and more of an "any moment this flat ground is going to turn into a Guatemalan sinkhole, just wait" argument)
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDelete"You are not an anarchist - am I correct?"
Hmm, am I an anarchist? I'd argue that the state is a largely outmoded bit of technology which exists as a result of inertia. If that makes me an anarchist, well so be it.
"How can you interpret that paragraph as anything other than a distinciton [sic] between libertarians who are and libertarians who aren't anarchists?"
Easily. Your statement just isn't very clear either way. You seem to want a heck of a lot of precision when it comes to discussing Keynes, Keynesianism, etc., and I expect the same when discussing libertarianism.
Xenophon -
ReplyDeleteWhat isn't precise? I'm distinguishing between:
1. Libertarians who are anarchists and who believe that all state use of force is immoral
2. Libertarians who are not anarchists and who believe that all state use of force is immoral
3. Libertarians who are anarchists and who do not believe that all state use of force is immoral, and
4. Libertarians who are not anarchists and who do not believe that all state use of force is immoral
And my point is that 3. is probably axiomatically impossible, 1. and 4. are consistent, and 2. is inconsistent. That seems to me to be a very precise analysis of exactly what libertarians I find problematic and what I don't find problematic (at least from the standpoint of consistency). Isn't that precise?
Evan,
ReplyDeleteI gave it the time I thought it deserved.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteIts far more precise than it was certainly.
"So why are libertarians constantly citing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?"
ReplyDeleteBecause both were the result of 19th and 20th century philosophies which are also at the core of the current notion of social democracy and the welfare state.
Also, note, we already have crony capitalism in full flower in the U.S.; witness the B.P. oil spill as exhibit #1 of this. And that crony capitalism exists without a "libertarian state" (whatever the heck that is) ever existing.
As for gang-rule anarchy, it exists throughout the world, without a libertarian state ever existing.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteAnyway, one reason not to use the term anarchism is due to the internal debates of anarchists - particularly the whole "was the state every legitimate" argument. Not something I am interested in.
To clear up a bit of confusion re. libertarianism, it is not opposed to just any use of force, even by an organization labeling itself "government" so long as that use of force is justifiable. This immediately presents a conundrum in the case of the State which is, as Max Weber defined it, a territorial monopolist of law (and security). This means that the State's courts have the final word in every case, even in disputes to which the State is party. In the post-monarchical age, it is easy for us to see through the charade and criticize the King's Courts that always ruled in favor of their employer... the King. Somehow, since we live in the age of representative government, we have a hard time coming to the same conclusion vis-a-vis representative governments.
ReplyDelete