Sorry, Russ.
I like my government republican too, and I'm not going to have you twist the meaning of that word. Russ Roberts is concerned about secrecy at the Fed, calling it "unacceptable in a democracy", titling the post "A Republic, if you can keep it". I guarantee you the founders didn't feel obligated to announce they were going to celebrate Christmas with a bunch of Hessians.
Some policies require secrecy to work well. In our republic, we constitute a limited government, and empower it to make policy consistent with those limits as long as the means of making it are necessary and proper. Secrecy, in many cases, is both necessary and proper. Certainly in a financial crisis it is.
I plan on keeping my republic, Russ. That does not entail mutating it beyond recognition into some libertarian construct.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What about after the crisis passes? Should some things remain secret indefinitely, or do you think that there is a period where disclosure is both necessary and preferable?
ReplyDeleteSure, I'd imagine it's going to get disclosed through the normal process. We're not out of the woods yet, though. Until we are, there's really no more warrant for this than there is for the DOD to turn over its contingency plans.
DeleteThe argument really makes no sense even aside from my point that secrecy is good policy in a lot of cases. Think about what he's saying. A lot of our money goes to Social Security and Medicare after all. Does that mean that we as taxpayers have a right to sensitive information on the income and assets of SS and Medicare recipients? Do I have a right to poke through the medical records of senior citizens, since I'm the one footing the bill for their medical care? Of course not. It's necessary and proper to keep those things private, just as its necessary and proper to provide mechanisms (short of simply releasing everyone's records) to prevent fraud and abuse to the extent that we can prevent it.
I didn't know you and Professor Roberts were on a first-name basis.
ReplyDeleteI figure it's more formal than "that guy".
ReplyDeleteAh, but a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic? That is the question.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually believe that policy deliberations by the central bank are the equivalent of Christmas party invite lists and information regarding individual private citizens? Transparency is necessary to hold office holders accountable. So sure, sometimes, some secrecy is necessary, but if we want to have something vaguely resembling democratic accountability, there must be a strong presumption in favor of accountability.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding your flippant comment, those aren't libertarian concepts. Those are democratic republican concepts.
First, you realize that the Christmas comment wasn't about some private holiday party, right? Click through the link if it wasn't clear what I was referring to.
DeleteFed gives loans to banks for their banking activities. SSA and CMS gives money to senior citizens for their medical expenses. I don't see why Russ's argument wouldn't apply equally to each of them. Can you explain how that works?
"So sure, sometimes, some secrecy is necessary, but if we want to have something vaguely resembling democratic accountability, there must be a strong presumption in favor of accountability."
I couldn't agree with you more. I hope you weren't interpreting me to be disagreeing with this.
"First, you realize that the Christmas comment wasn't about some private holiday party, right?"
DeleteI did not actually. I was not born in the US and so do not have as firm a grasp of American History as those who were taught about it since grade school.
"Fed gives loans to banks for their banking activities. SSA and CMS gives money to senior citizens for their medical expenses. I don't see why Russ's argument wouldn't apply equally to each of them. Can you explain how that works?"
Well, it does apply equally to each of them. And as it turns out, we do have the equivalent of the policy minutes of the FOMC in the case of SSA and CMS. The payments are governed by acts of Congress and internal agency regulations. The regulations and acts were themselves passed in relatively transparent processes. You can look up the regulations and laws and the debates surrounding those laws and regulations any time you want. So what we want here is the rules that the Fed uses to decide who they loan to and how much and the debates and rationals that motivated the adoption of these rules.
Furthermore, it is highly improbable that individual social security or medicare recipients will have a significant impact on Medicare or Social Security policy. On the other hand, it is not at all unlikely that a large bank could substantially influence the policy-making of the Federal Reserve for their own benefit.
Those are substantial differences that would seem to imply different treatment.
"I couldn't agree with you more. I hope you weren't interpreting me to be disagreeing with this."
Re-read what you wrote. Your justification is that: "Secrecy, in many cases, is both necessary and proper. Certainly in a financial crisis it is." Granted. It sometimes is. But if indeed you believe there should be "a strong presumption" in favor of transparency, a general understanding that in some cases secrecy is necessary and proper is insufficient to justify secrecy in any particular case. To do so, you must appeal to a specific reason why in this particular case, secrecy is appropriate. (Or would be, since you're obviously not privy to the potentially secret reasons for the secrecy itself)
I used the term "FOMC minutes" to refer to the bulk of the documents. Sorry about the inaccuracy.
DeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read Thomas Christiano's The Rule of the Many (1996).
The problem I have with how your use of democratic rhetoric is that we have no idea (1) what is meant by "democratic", (2) why it is morally meaningful, and (3) what institutional requirements are necessary in order to live up to the democratic ideal.
Here's the point that you seem to resist: "democratic" decision-making and "democratic" governance is part of a normative ideal, subject to differing conceptions of the moral/political concept. For example, "democracy" is often related to the ideal of "self governance", which is usually taken to either entail or presuppose an ideal of "political equality" and "genuine political representation". As a result, certain institutional mechanisms can fail to live up to or even put us on the path towards a genuine democratic political community. But "self governance", "political equality", and "political representation" are subject to differing interpretations and conceptions, each requiring normative argument and assessment. This is why we see many political theorists/philosophers argue for a system of proportional representation, because a winner-take-all electoral system is said to undermine political equality, thereby undermining self-governance and the ideal of democratic decision-making. As a result, something more is needed that simply pointing to decision-procedures, recognizing that some voting takes place, and thereby concluding that the political system is "democratic" is some morally-meaningful way. This can, of course, be your view. But argument is requirement. Most importantly, you must make a case illustrating why the mere presence of voting on some decisions (in the U.S., infrequenly voting on one very general decision) is a normatively-meaningful interpretation of the ideal of self governance and political equality.