OK, for a while now I've been toying with the idea of a "what in the world is Arnold Kling thinking?" sort of post, but I never went ahead with it. Arnold presents a very interesting case. His posts on macroeconomics are often fascinating. He takes Minsky seriously, which is more than can be said for a lot of libertarians - and he integrates it with some innovative work on the macroeconomics of labor by Garett Jones. This stuff is always great to read.
But quite regularly, Kling writes up posts where he speculates on "liberals" or "the left" or some other formulation of mainstream, non-libertarian, non-conservatives that are nothing short of bizarre.
Here, Kling asks how people who think the state should solve market failures should in some way be evaluated on the basis of the fate of the Soviet Union. He describes the Soviet Union as an experiment that tests this "market failure" position, an experiment which inevitably liberals ignore. The problems with this framing of the question should be obvious to anyone that knows even a small amount of economics. Since when is state control of retail trade (the issue he specifically cites) an attempt at addressing a market failure? People who set out parameters for when markets succeed and when markets fail would have predicted the total failure of the Soviet excursion into retail trade, not to mention the Soviet experiment in general. Kling asks how we can cope with such damning empirical evidence. The logic is barely comprehensible.
If the "market failure" school of thought were to describe their ideal society, what kind of society would they describe? One like the United States, Western Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. - that's what. If you take market failure seriously you think these societies get it right and the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. get it wrong. The problem isn't a lack of examples of societies that address market failures - the problem is a lack of a libertarian counter-factual to compare it to!
This is just one example of Arnold's odd take on liberals. There are many others that consistently lead me to ask "is this the same Arnold Kling that just wrote such an enlightening post about Minsky and Jones?"
For example:
- Liberals don't like markets and think markets are unfair
- Liberals don't like school choice, think that "technocrats" and social scientists have "mystical" powers, and don't understand "the knowledge problem" (i.e. - Hayek's point)
- Liberals "tend to affiliate themselves with Harvard types, and Harvard types believe that they are smarter than markets" (keep reading that quote... it gets even crazier and more conspiratorial)
- Liberals (1.) don't see inconsistency between legalizing marijuana while banning trans fats, (2.) want to ban trans fats, and (3.) don't want to legalize marijuana because they believe in limited government (they want to legalize marijuana because they don't think it's a problem)
- Liberals "are confident that they are smarter and better educated than conservatives"
What's weird is how insightful Kling can be in certain posts, and how completely disconnected from reality he can be whenever the topic of "what liberals think" comes up. Usually I'm not convinced by psychoanalytic interpretations, but I'm seriously tempted to think that there is some deeply-rooted, unresolved issue in Kling's past that leads to posting like this.
Anyway - very strange. I go back and forth between personally identifying as a "liberal", but I'm certainly left of center and I do think the ideas behind "market failures" are very important for understanding how a wide variety of social institutions work (or do not work). So apparently I identify with "Harvard-types", think I'm smarter than everyone else, and should have my ideas evaluated on the basis of the performance of the Soviet Union.
Hmmmm...
I labeled this "part 1" because from now on I'm not going to refrain from reposting the craziness here. It's just too weird not to share. If anyone else has any particularly egregious examples please feel free to share.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"People who set out parameters for when markets succeed and when markets fail would have predicted the total failure of the Soviet excursion into retail trade, not to mention the Soviet experiment in general."
ReplyDeleteWhich people and when?
"If you take market failure seriously you think these societies get it right and the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. get it wrong."
Not if you take public choice seriously. Let's face it, most of advocates of the market failure hypothesis do not take public choice seriously - and it shows in the sorts of things we see in public policy.
"Liberals don't like markets and think markets are unfair"
That is a fair assessment. Liberals don't like markets; they seem to generally view them as "necessary evils" that sooner or later will be done away with. You get a similar vibe from Keynes when he rails against "greed" and the desire for money.
"Liberals don't like school choice..."
That seems like a fair assessment. On average, liberals do not like school choice. The survey data backs this point up to the best of my knowledge.
Liberals (1.) don't see inconsistency between legalizing marijuana while banning trans fats, (2.) want to ban trans fats, and (3.) don't want to legalize marijuana because they believe in limited government (they want to legalize marijuana because they don't think it's a problem)"
Liberals (like conservatives) are incredibly inconsistent when it comes personal freedom - and those inconsistencies aren't grounded in anything like one might call careful thought, etc. but are largely driven by the sorts of irrational taboos and notions of bodily purity one might expect.
"Liberals 'are confident that they are smarter and better educated than conservatives'"
In my experience that is true of both liberals and conservatives.
Most of what you identify as "crazy" - well, it isn't crazy.
I have encountered liberals who fit Kling's descriptions. That said, he doesn't qualify his assertions well enough, and occasionally he wanders into bizarre and speculative territory. I get the feeling he is talking from experience with a particular group that he once lived among. Whoever they are, they are not representative of liberals like yourself, but then again I find you quite unusual (in a good way).
ReplyDeleteOh, his recent post about market failure and socialism was just weird. Kling didn't present the kind of nuanced and subtle argument needed to make that work. It loosely fits his long run point that market failure does not equal government success, and that government failure is far more common and likely than liberals assume.
ReplyDelete"I go back and forth between personally identifying as a "liberal", but I'm certainly left of center..."
ReplyDeleteSee, you say this all the time, but you have as yet to actually define what that means.
Where do you score on something like this?
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Xenophon - I used to consistently score pretty much at the intersection of "Center"/"Libertarian"/Liberal". I imagine that can move over time - I'll take it again out of curiosity. These tests lack nuance, but since that's where I think of myself (at that center-libertarian-liberal corner), I suppose they're somewhat reasonable.
ReplyDeleteLee Kelly -
I don't know, any maybe it's just because I'm surrounded by very smart liberals, but I come across the kind of people Kling describes quite rarely. He also confuses terms a lot I think. Are there people that have the sorts of liberal screeds and thoughtlessness that Kling describes? Sure, they're out there. But he sometimes acts like he's engaging the liberals that put thought into it/are familiar with economics/etc, and if that's what he's talking about those people generally aren't the kind of naive oafs that he describes. Part of the problem may simply be getting a grip on what he's talking about. There are certainly idiots of the liberal persuasion. Is that what he's thinking of? Sometimes it seems like it, sometimes not. Either way its an odd mix of blatant, unproven generalization in some posts and really insightful posts on other subjects.
Any test like this is going to lack nuance ... but they do get to the core of one's political philosophy.
ReplyDelete"I don't know, any maybe it's just because I'm surrounded by very smart liberals..."
Very smart liberals are still prone to all sorts of ill-considered baggage. Indeed, intelligence is one of the best ways to hide what are otherwise rather obvious blindspots.
"Either way its an odd mix of blatant, unproven generalization in some posts..."
That's an odd accusation given how much you generalize about libertarians (without apparently any evidence besides your personal experience).
"In my experience that is true of both liberals and conservatives."
ReplyDeleteAnd this is an interesting point I should have made. Are some of these things true of many liberals? Sure. But I guess what I should have said is that they seem to me to be equally true of conservatives and libertarians. Thinking they're smarter, for example. Of course a lot of people make this mistake. If you believe something presumably you have a reason to believe it. If other people don't believe the same thing a lot of people conclude they're not smart enough to understand the reason why you believe it. That gets generalized and you get "my people are smarter than your people". But that's apparent all over the place - conservatives, liberals, libertarians.
So I should have made that clearer but I will now - I'm not challenging Kling on the grounds that liberals are perfect by any means. I do think they're more insightful than he gives him credit for, but of course they have flaws. The point is they aren't characteristically liberal flaws - they're human flaws.
"Let's face it, most of advocates of the market failure hypothesis do not take public choice seriously - and it shows in the sorts of things we see in public policy."
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty good example of a case where you think liberals have missed or misunderstood something because they don't come to your conclusion about it. Public choice theory is an interesting beast, because it's relatively new and its discussed by a relatively insular community. So recently Don Boudreaux marveled at the fact that Paul Krugman hadn't heard of Public Choice Theory. I think you and Don make far too much of this. Public Choice theory repackages a lot of things that economists have known for a very long time. There was nothing innovative about Public Choice Theory - that was not its contribution. Its contribution was that it formalized a lot of very old and very widely held insights. So not explicitly knowing public choice theory isn't that problematic in my book (of course ideally they would be familiar with it, but it doesn't mean that they're not familiar with insights of PCT).
Ultimately I think you're dead wrong, though. Market failure advocates do understand the insights of public choice theory they simply don't see it as the deciding factor that you may see it as. Public Choice Theory tells us about the pitfalls of any state action. This is very useful in a case like retail (which Kling discussed w.r.t. the Soviet Union) where we expect markets to do well. If the market does well and the state doesn't do well and there are no obvious advantages of the state, then of course you let the market do the job. In situations of market failure you're trading off market failure and government failure, and in particularly egregious market failure cases the people who think the way I do conclude that the government failure is the lesser evil - particularly in a representative government. I'm not sure how you jump from weighing things in that way and disagreeing with you to not understanding the principle of government failure.
Market failure is also something that is pervasive despite an agent's knowledge of the failure. Individual agents cannot (usually) "fix" externalities or asymmetries (in some cases markets for information, corporate reorganization, etc. fix these problems - but if they get fixed it's not really a "market failure" so its a moot point). Government failures are also resistant to being fixed by agents aware of the problem, but we would expect that they are more likely to be fixed in a well-structured government (with checks and balances, corruption laws, elections, etc.). In other words, there are more government failures than there are market failures out there, but where there are market failures:
1. Government failures prevent a perfect solution (ie - we may not know exactly what the right carbon tax rate should be) but they usually don't prevent an improvement - a movement in the right direction, and
2. Well structured government has some prospect of fixing its failures.
FYI: I score 100% on both the economic and social queries.
ReplyDelete"Very smart liberals are still prone to all sorts of ill-considered baggage. Indeed, intelligence is one of the best ways to hide what are otherwise rather obvious blindspots."
ReplyDelete"Very smart" was probably the wrong term in the context of this discussion... I'm surrounded by very self-aware, thoughtful, non-demagogical liberals.
This is a pretty good example of a case where you think liberals have missed or misunderstood something because they don't come to your conclusion about it."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is a case where I am right. Liberals do not public choice economics into account hardly at all. If they did, they would not push stupid things as "campaign finance reform."
"Market failure advocates do understand the insights of public choice theory they simply don't see it as the deciding factor that you may see it as."
No, they don't. If they did we would not have the plethora of laws which clearly illustrate the lessons of public choice. We're surrounded by moronic laws which illustrate the lessons on a daily basis.
"...but they usually don't prevent an improvement..."
Sure they do. Consider the catalytic converter - a technology imposed to benefit the U.S. auto industry and one which we remain stuck with. There are a plethora of examples like this - where some technology, etc. is imposed to benefit one party while claiming that the rationale behind the law is to solve some problem. And one remains stuck in the mire created by such.
"Well structured government has some prospect of fixing its failures."
I have as yet to see a "well structured government."
"That's an odd accusation given how much you generalize about libertarians (without apparently any evidence besides your personal experience)."
ReplyDeleteExamples???????
I'm both sympathetic and critical of libertarians here on a regular basis, which is already more than can be said for a lot of the discussion of liberals in Kling's posts. Even when I'm critical I try to either be critical of specific cases or I try to say "some" libertarians. I checked - Kling never uses that qualification in any of the posts I link to.
What accusation of libertarians do you find inappropriate? Have I ever called them anarchists? Have I ever accused them of being ignorant of economics? Have I ever accused them of not caring about human freedom?
The worst I ever have to say about libertarians is that their ideas for how society ought to change are quite radical and can be characterized as "mega-projects". That's an argument of mine that I've explained on several occassions. You can disagree with me on it, but it's not really belittling or insulting libertarians.
"No, they don't. If they did we would not have the plethora of laws which clearly illustrate the lessons of public choice. We're surrounded by moronic laws which illustrate the lessons on a daily basis."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to me to be a concern with legislators and politicians, not liberals.
"I have as yet to see a "well structured government.""
ReplyDeleteWill you settle for decent?
I'm not sure what to say to this. We need to consistently make improvements, but if you're unsatisfied with American democracy, even as something to live with until we hit on something better, I'm not sure what else to tell you. The word "utopian" comes to mind. "Well structured" is a vague term, but realistically speaking we're about as well placed as we could expect to be in this point in our development.
By the way - I'm 80% personal, 30% economic which puts me two squares to the south west of the center-left-libertarian point.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really short test with very extreme issues (ie "cut taxes by 50% or more" vs. "cut taxes"). It's not as good at other tests - I imagine it is naturally more polarizing than other tests.
Which I suppose kind of fits the way you seem to see people :) Center, far left, what's the difference right!
Not to make this personal...
ReplyDelete"Have I ever called them anarchists?"
No, you've stated in the past that unless you are an anarchist you cannot be in some respects a consistent libertarian.
"Have I ever accused them of being ignorant of economics?"
Your whole line of attack regarding "market failure" is based basically on that sort of reasoning.
"Have I ever accused them of not caring about human freedom?"
You have stated in the past that libertarians (or at the very least those who opposed FDR's policies) are not sensitive to evolving notions of liberty, human community, or what have you.
"This seems to me to be a concern with legislators and politicians, not liberals."
Liberals support the legislation that is passed (see the "Health Care Reform" or "Financial Reform"). If you do so then you are willing to at the very least to overlook the public choice problems associated with these laws.
"The word 'utopian' comes to mind."
I am sure it does; in the 17th century I'm know that advocates for the end of slavery were also called something similar (and worse).
"'Well structured' is a vague term, but realistically speaking we're about as well placed as we could expect to be in this point in our development."
That's at best a subjective evaluation and basically a cop out IMHO.
Well, come up with a different test then.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I go back to my original point - most of what you single out here re: Kling's thoughts are not "crazy." I'd have to look at the "mystical powers" link to evaluate the one thing I did not challenge.
ReplyDelete"No, you've stated in the past that unless you are an anarchist you cannot be in some respects a consistent libertarian.
ReplyDeleteSort of. What I've said is that unless you are an anarchist you are on the exact same slippery slope (the same "road to serfdom", if you will) that libertarians accuse everyone else of being on.
"Your whole line of attack regarding "market failure" is based basically on that sort of reasoning."
What is this? Can't furnish evidence so you infer? That won't cut it buddy. Justifying my point with a market failure argument isn't tantamount to accusing others of not understanding it. We always have to justify our arguments with some sort of logic. Simply elaborating that logic doesn't constitute an insult.
"If you do so then you are willing to at the very least to overlook the public choice problems associated with these laws."
Well this is precisely the point! The public choice problems are acknowledged but they simply aren't enough to do the even worse option of not doing anything! That would be like refusing to date or get married because relationships can have problems. Just because you decide to engage in a relationship with another human being doesn't mean you aren't cognizant of the potential problems.
80% on social? So which of the questions did you answer maybe or disagree on?
ReplyDeleteSee, now I even forgot if I put "maybe" or "disagree" - but it was the drugs question and the national ID question.
ReplyDeleteOn drugs I could probably support prohibition of hard drugs, although its not something I feel particularly strongly about one way or the other. If they had specified which drugs I probably would have had an easier time saying "agree". Obviously I'm a strong supporter of marijuana legalization and could probably support many others. I could also probably support legalization of all hard drugs if they were regulated and diluted (not even sure if this is possible - I'm not too involved in the drug world!). Anyway - I'm not invested in that one, but with it left so vague I had trouble outright saying "agree".
On the national ID card - this really depends on exactly what it consists of and what its for. Is it a citizenship card or a resident card? The inability to have a standard identification is a real impediment form any people's lives. I can imagine this as something that's benign - another driver's license type of thing - or much more sinister. So I wasn't going to write "agree" indiscriminantly.
"What I've said is that unless you are an anarchist you are on the exact same slippery slope (the same "road to serfdom", if you will) that libertarians accuse everyone else of being on."
ReplyDeleteWhich is just beyond stupid.
"Justifying my point with a market failure argument isn't tantamount to accusing others of not understanding it."
We had an entire discussion about this actually - and it boiled down to libertarians not accepting or not understanding the claims regarding market failure. The "not accepting" wasn't due to some reasoned approach, BTW.
"The public choice problems are acknowledged but they simply aren't enough to do the even worse option of not doing anything!"
This is a rather strange sort of claim. The reason not doing anything is problematic is largely political in nature - you can't really justify the laws on their merits. I mean consider "financial reform," which seems to be based on the notion that the real problem was all those shady lenders and evil capitalist types who took advantage of people. Liberals basically don't believe that there was a housing bubble - if they did then they would have addressed the problems with Fannie & Freddie. But they didn't, because Fannie & Freddie are ... interests which can protect themselves from this legislation. So yes, doing something was worse than doing nothing, because doing something created an entire legal regime was completely unnecessary and didn't actually address the underlying problems.
With the prohibition with any drug you are still going to have the problems you see with marijuana prohibition. Assaults on personal freedom generally speaking, people having their homes bashed in by paramilitary police units (and having their dogs shot as well), etc. So the question is which is worse - the problems associated with personal freedom in this are or the problems associated with the state trying to regulate personal freedom.
ReplyDelete"The inability to have a standard identification is a real impediment form any people's lives."
And the requirement that there be standard identification is a real problem with for a lot of people. Cato has had a number of excellent roundtables on the myriad problems with National ID cards.
If have any interest in the nature of the drug war (and police conduct, criminal justice, etc. in general) I suggest you follow Radley Balko's site "The Agitator."
ReplyDeleteAmongst other things if you are interested you should check this out: Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America - http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
Thanks Xenophon. I'm pretty solid in my position against the drug war, and as troubling as it is its a little out of scope for me. You've got no argument from me on the drug war - I wouldn't make too much of my hesitation on that question.
ReplyDelete*little out of scope for me in terms of what I'm going to take the time to read up on. If I was more on the fence or less aware of what's going on generally I might.
ReplyDeleteIn light of this discussion I thought I would pass this along: http://c4ss.org/content/3392
ReplyDelete