Two sides to Chavez? Difficult legacy?

After reading this description of life under Chavez posted on Reddit, assuming it's all true (and it does link to sources), I had a hard time swallowing the arguments made here in the Globe and Mail that there are "two sides" to Chavez that are difficult to reconcile... In fact, each "success" recounted has a clear refutation or response in the first-hand (and citation-supported) account posted on Reddit. I give the arguments and responses below (indented quotes from the Reddit account, italics from the Globe and Mail piece). I start with the first "puzzle" described -- his mixed record on democracy:

Mr. Chavez was proud of his democracy and to his credit, he installed what is probably the most tamper-proof voting system in the Americas. The opposition did not contest his 55-per-cent majority in October’s presidential election, nor is there much dispute about the overwhelming success of his party in December’s gubernatorial elections. (His candidates won 20 of 23 governorships.) However, reliable results on election day do not compensate for the loss of the country’s independent judiciary, the politicization of the electoral tribunal, the muzzling of much (not all) of the opposition media, the flagrant abuse of state resources for government candidates – in other words, the tilting of the electoral playing field and the removal of checks and balances.

The article implies that he's brought about some measure of democracy, as it says he brought tamper-proof voting system, but then the rest of the paragraph describes how it's actually a completely corrupt system that's in place. It's easy to make voting fair when you rig the election in your own favour! That's not puzzling, that's dictatorship 101.

Illiteracy has all but disappeared in Venezuela.

Really, this is attributable to Chavez? I'm wondering how great the education system is, if:

The buildings are falling apart. The roads are falling apart, as is the entire infrastructure. The Caracas metro has gone from one of the greatest in the world to one of the worst. Building projects never get finished. 

Education and free health care are almost universally available.

Hm...The Reddit account says:

During the rainy season, land and mudslides are a common occurrence, which blocks roads, and destroys thousands of homes, leaving tens of thousands homeless each year. This is not being helped as the government builds very little housing for the poor and because the houses in the barrios where these landslides happen have no foundation and are simply bricks on top of earth or concrete. The poor are not better off. There are some hospitals and clinics in the barrios, and many outside, but they are all severely understaffed and are all suffering from severe shortages of medicine and medical supplies, such as saline.

He has succeeded in partially closing the huge gap between wealth and poverty. 

Has he? It's not just that he might have done this by impoverishing some who were previously above the poverty line, he's also letting some people become very rich... just for starters:

As of right now, the inflation is approximately 22.1%, one of the highest in the world. In addition, the Bolivar is currently valued at 6.3 Bolivars to the USD. However, nobody uses this value as it's absolute bullshit. The correct rate is about 26.4 bolivars to the USD as of right now...

This is a scheme to make the rich richer, offering much chance for corruption and theft from the worst off... as it goes on to say: 

[There are] absolutely untold amounts of corruption in the government. Governors of states have been found trafficking drugs to the states or have been found stealing millions and millions of dollars from public projects, like the Valencia metro.

Wealth may now come more from corruption and politics than business, but I betcha the gap between rich and poor is still there.

Improving the quality of life for millions at the bottom levels of society is no small achievement.


It would be -- but it's not at all clear that this has occurred. In addition to the lack of adequate housing, does this sound like better quality of life? (apologies for minor repetition)

As a result of this and of the price controls on various products such as eggs, oil, toilet paper, chicken, beef, medicines, milk, cement, rent, sugar, and flour, there are constant shortages of these necessary products as well as staple foods, such as rice and potatoes. There are many times where milk isn't available for weeks or months at a time, or oil or flour or sugar...what about what it's actually like to live here under Chávez? Well, the murder rate is currently 45.1 per 100,000, while Caracas currently has the 6th highest murder rate of any city in the world at 98.71 per 100,000. Not to mention the thousands of kidnappings a month. I have many friends who have been kidnapped for ransom as well as the more recent examples of the Mexican embassador being kidnapped and more.

The buildings are falling apart. The roads are falling apart, as is the entire infrastructure. The Caracas metro has gone from one of the greatest in the world to one of the worst. Building projects never get finished. The port in La Guaira is currently being "modernized" and can only handle 1 ship at a time, maybe 2 if we're lucky and the planets are aligned, driving prices even higher, making products rarer and causing shipping companies to be less likely to dock here as they can be anchored off of La Guaira for weeks at a time waiting to be unloaded. The runway at the airport is falling apart, causing constant delays. The road to the airport gets blocked by landslides all the time, effectively cutting the city off.

He also imparted to these millions a sense of dignity about themselves and pride in their leader’s often bombastic rhetoric.
Oh great, he's forcing people to express "pride" in his arrogant, corrupt ass. Brilliant.

Does Mr. Chavez’s good outrank Mr. Chavez’s bad? Probably, but taken together, they make a difficult legacy. 

~ really? "probably"? And Castro too? How about Stalin?

Fuller description of two volume series on Free Institutions and Cultural Change

Here is a fuller description of the double collection:

Austrian Economic Perspectives on Market Organization

and

Austrian Economic Perspectives on Individualism and Society

Overview

The primary uniting theme for the Free Institutions and Cultural Change double essay collection (or series) is the question of whether the spontaneous order/s of the unhindered free market society offer the best society, and how insights from other heterodox schools should (or should not) modify the Austrian model of spontaneous order. This will be split into two volumes: (1) economic organization and (2) cultural and social questions.

Volume one: Austrian Economic Perspectives on Market Organization  Contributors who will offer full visions of society, asking questions about economic organization, will be in the first section. This will likely include much discussion of spontaneous order, market socialism, corporatism, communitarism, anarchism, those arguing for new kinds of systems and those arguing against such visions, and in general those interested in discussing the overall structure of society.

Volume two: Austrian Economic Perspectives on Individualism and Society  The second section will focus on culture, society, and problems with the concept of individualism or collectivism. It will ask whether the Austrian basis in methodological individualism is theoretically sound, and whether the spontaneous order of the market needs to be supplemented with the social order. Insights may come from feminism, community-oriented anarchism including anarcho-communism and mutualism, and even other social sciences such as anthropology, etc.

Full Description

Is there a justifiable role for the state (the people as a democratic collective) beyond the mere protection of individual rights to life and property--should there be redistribution, public ownership, or intervention in the economy? Austrians and market socialists - along, perhaps, with other heterodox economists - agree on the flaws of mainstream economic methodology and the reasons for the failure of planning, but disagree on this central question.

The Austrian framework of evolutionary spontaneous order made up of individuals acting, when modified by an understanding of evolutionary cultural change, and by a concession of the right of all individuals to a portion of the value of natural resources, provides a powerful theoretical starting point for bridging the gap between free market and market socialist policy perspectives.

The value of land could be redistributed as a basic income guarantee without sacrificing free market ideals, as discussed in my forthcoming collection on the topic; but what if we changed limited liability corporation laws, and the like? This kind of change would have effects that interact with and foster social and cultural change, and could be supplemented with other changes that, although they involve redistribution, might be acceptable to Austrians if they concede the right of individuals to a portion of the Earth's natural resources.

If Austrians can be more flexible, rejecting the laissez-faire fundamentalism they are often known for, they may find much common ground with other heterodox schools. This two-part essay collection aims to find and nurture this common ground through explorations of alternative systems and models that achieve the dynamic efficiency and welfare goals of all economists and social scientists.

Volume 1: Austrian Economic Perspectives on Market Organization

Essays in the first volume will discuss forms of organization (communist, exchange, hierarchical) in terms not only of their economic efficiency, but also their affect on morality and social exchange. There will be contributions from economists and other social scientists, and in particular from Austrian economists, market socialists, and anarchists. Contributors will analyze the social, political, and economic system as a whole, and argue for the best way to organize the system for economic efficiency as well as welfare of the people, and may offer a proposal for radical institutional change or an argument against such a proposal.

Austrian economists might consider whether a corrective is necessary for “really existing” markets, which are affected not only by intervention, but also by inheritance over many generations of wealth and privilege not all of which was earned in a way that Austrians would consider fair. In the market system any advantage, be it from inheriting land wealth or the luck of intelligence, good parents, and healthy body, may exponentially multiply the person's future advantage and market power.

The collection explores areas of theoretical agreement between Austrian theory and market socialist economics and other heterodox schools of economic and political science; in the first volume, spontaneous order and other Austrian theories will be complemented with insights from less free-market schools of thought and used to analyze various forms of social and economic organization. Some of these include: corporation-status, co-operatives, communitarian structures, income supports, land redistribution, subsistence communities, private property based and communal anarchy, decentralized democracy, and other political structures.

Proposed Chapter Outline

Part One: Criticisms of the Market and Possible Alternatives

1.   Introduction (Guinevere Nell)

2.  “The New Market Socialism” (Peter Abell)

3.  “Money, Markets, and a Non-Market Socialism” (Anitra Nelson)

4.  “The Evolution of Market Society: A True Third Way” (Guinevere Nell)

5.  “Spontaneous Order and the Market’s Complex Relationship with Democracy” (Gus diZerega)

6. “The Problem of Unemployment When Markets Clear” (Daniel Kuehn)

7. “Austrian and Contested Exchange Price Theory” (Andrew Farrant and Edward McPhail)

8. “The Firm and the Authority Relation: Hierarchy vs Organization” (Per Bylund)

8. “Austrian Marketocracy” (Leslie Marsh and Corey Abel)

9. “Market Anarchy, Market Democracy” (Gary Chartier)

Part Two: Criticisms of Proposals

1. Replies and Rebuttals

Volume 2: Austrian Economic Perspectives on Individualism and Society

The second volume will bring together economists and political scientists with an interest in evolutionary social and cultural change and spontaneous order. Spontaneous order and other Austrian theories will be complemented with consideration of culture and social and communal interaction. This volume aims to bridge some of the divisions between free market advocates stressing individual rights and individualistic culture and left-leaning thinkers who stress social justice and a culture of social solidarity, or collectivism.

Austrian school economic theory recognizes the importance of subjective value, consumer sovereignty, and spontaneous order. The market is not the only spontaneous order in society, and the market order and its surrounding cultural spontaneous order are interconnected and self-reinforcing. Markets may channel profit-driven relaxation of prejudices or may allow a channeling of discrimination and an imposition of winning preferences upon the powerless in the system. The values and preferences of the individuals within a spontaneous order are shaped endogenously, part of the evolution of markets and culture.

Private property, exchange, and free markets may allow an evolution of culture and society. Yet, a fully free-market system based entirely on private ownership may preclude some aspects of social and cultural freedom. Communal activities and organizations may help to supplement the individualistic nature of markets and aid change in society and culture, and cultural change may be necessary for markets to truly serve our needs. Hierarchy exists within corporate firms, and other kinds of economic organization may offer benefits difficult to realize in a system based purely on private ownership; yet public ownership may create even more hierarchy, bureaucracy, stagnation, and corruption. Is there a way to improve upon both the free market and nationalization? Market socialist and other heterodox exploration of cultural and social factors may help to inform Austrian theory, while Austrian studies of spontaneous order may offer these schools a more rigorous framework for analyzing economic and social orders.

Proposed Chapter Outline

Part One: Criticisms of Austrian Theory

1.  Introduction (Guinevere Nell)

2. “The Spontaneous Orders of Market and Society” (Troy Camplin)

3. “Hayek and the Postmodern Road to Socialism” (Rob Garnett)

4. “Improving Spontaneous Orders” (Randall Holcombe)

Part Two: Replies and Rebuttals

1. Replies and Rebuttals

Free Institutions and Cultural Change to be in 2 volumes

The new essay collection for Palgrave will be split into 2 volumes (contact me if you have interest in contributing, as there still may be room for more, especially for volume 2). Here is a description of the collection's theme and its split into two parts:

The primary uniting theme for the Free Institutions and Cultural Change essay collection is the question of whether the spontaneous order/s of the unhindered free market society offer the best society, and how insights from other heterodox schools should (or should not) modify the Austrian model of spontaneous order. This will be split into two volumes: (1) economic organization and (2) cultural and social questions.

Volume one: economic organization. Contributors who will offer full visions of society, asking questions about economic organization, will be in the first section. This will likely include much discussion of spontaneous order, market socialism, corporatism, communitarism, anarchism, those arguing for new kinds of systems and those arguing against such visions, and in general those interested in discussing the overall structure of society.

Volume two: society and the social. The second section will focus on culture, society, and problems with the concept of individualism or collectivism. It will ask whether the Austrian basis in methodological individualism is theoretically sound, and whether the spontaneous order of the market needs to be supplemented with the social order. Insights may come from feminism, community-oriented anarchism including anarcho-communism and mutualism, and even other social sciences such as anthropology, etc.

More Info: 

Is there a justifiable role for the state (the people as a democratic collective) beyond the mere protection of individual rights to life and property--should there be redistribution, public ownership, or intervention in the economy? Austrians and market socialists - along, perhaps, with other heterodox economists - agree on the flaws of mainstream economic methodology and the reasons for the failure of planning, but disagree on this central question.

The Austrian framework of evolutionary spontaneous order made up of individuals acting, when modified by an understanding of evolutionary cultural change, and by a concession of the right of all individuals to a portion of the value of natural resources, provides a powerful theoretical starting point for bridging the gap between free market and market socialist policy perspectives.

The value of land could be redistributed as a basic income guarantee without sacrificing free market ideals, as discussed in my forthcoming collection on the topic; but what if we changed limited liability corporation laws, and the like? This kind of change would have effects that interact with and foster social and cultural change, and could be supplemented with other changes that, although they involve redistribution, might be acceptable to Austrians if they concede the right of individuals to a portion of the Earth's natural resources.

If Austrians can be more flexible, rejecting the laissez-faire fundamentalism they are often known for, they may find much common ground with other heterodox schools. This two-part essay collection aims to find and nurture this common ground through explorations of alternative systems and models that achieve the dynamic efficiency and welfare goals of all economists and social scientists.

Free Institutions and Cultural Change

Palgrave has accepted the essay collection on Austrian economics, economic organization, and cultural change that I have posted the CFP for here. The proposal as accepted is posted below. Please contact me if you would like to contribute as there may still be room for more papers.

Book Proposal: Free Institutions and Cultural Change

Guinevere Nell, editor

1) Proposed title and subtitle

Free Institutions and Cultural Change: The Common Ground Shared by Austrian Economics and Market Socialism

2) Brief Description:

This book will be a collection of essays by economists and political scientists, each with an interest in evolutionary cultural change and either a proposal for radical institutional change or an argument against such a proposal. The essay collections will explore areas of theoretical agreement between Austrian theory and market socialist economics and other heterodox schools of economic and political science. The collection also aims to bridge some of the cultural and policy divisions between free market advocates stressing individual rights and individualistic culture and left-leaning thinkers who stress social justice and a culture of solidarity or collectivism.

Austrian school economic theory recognizes the importance of subjective value, consumer sovereignty, and spontaneous order. The market is not the only spontaneous order in society, and the market order and its surrounding cultural spontaneous order are interconnected and self-reinforcing. Markets may channel profit-driven relaxation of prejudices or may allow a channeling of discrimination and an imposition of winning preferences upon the powerless in the system. The values and preferences of the individuals within a spontaneous order are shaped endogenously, part of the evolution of markets and culture.

Private property, exchange, and free markets may allow an evolution of culture and society. Yet, a fully free-market system based entirely on private ownership may preclude some aspects of social and cultural freedom. Hierarchy exists within firms and other kinds of economic organization may offer benefits difficult to realize in a system based purely on private ownership. Market socialist and other heterodox exploration of cultural and social factors may help to inform Austrian theory, while Austrian studies of spontaneous order may offer these schools a more rigorous framework for analyzing economic and social orders.

3) Full Description:

The concept of spontaneous order and the significance of deciding something politically (for example through democratic decision-making) rather than allowing private decision-making by the owner through market exchange, are among the important ideas that Austrian economists can offer non-market and market socialists. In turn, Austrians should take more seriously the important points that market socialists stress regarding culture and the inequalities that luck, circumstance due to the "class" one is born, and to race, sex, etc. given culture-based discrimination impose upon individuals, and the way that these inequalities are compounded in markets whether free or politically influenced.

Markets, even if entirely unhindered by intervention, are not made up only by the pure "free market" of theory, as described by Austrians and libertarians. There are more subtle, cultural aspects of markets. Austrians and other economists are often dismissive of things like efficiency-wage theories, concerns about inequality, and cultural (sexual, race-based, religious, etc) discrimination. However, markets might work much more as they are assumed to work by Austrians if these ideas were taken more seriously.

For example, many anarchists see certain things as possible to achieve through markets without government aid. However, what is seen as possible differs between private-property anarchists and anarchists from the socialist tradition. Communitarianism, societies based upon cooperatives, and other non-individualistic societies are seen as achievable goals by socialist anarchists if these cultural changes take place. Libertarian and Austrian anarchists who do not incorporate culture explicitly into their model often do not see these worlds as possible, or they do not think it is possible to achieve efficiency. They believe they are not compatible with human nature, which they see as given and fixed. However, Austrians argue that markets are potentially good at conveying the good will of people, and helping to overcome discrimination, such as when profit drives businesses to serve all customers willing to pay or hire all productive workers, regardless of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.

There is an element of individual responsibility for both employer and consumer in a market economy, and the cultural agreement made by a given society is core to how this manifests. Preferences are not fixed; and cultural and market orders interact and fuel each other. The power and wealth distribution and the cultural order interact. Hence, culture is an important ingredient in the creation of a given society. Markets may aid cultural change, but the culture may need influences external to the existing market economy in order bring about successful policy change. This is why the imposition of new institutions may falter, something that Austrian economists recognize and have explored at length.

Markets, as part of a larger evolving cultural system, can allow discrimination through both the consumer (consider the Christian community’s support for anti-gay marriage company Chik-Fil-A) and the employer. The employer may discriminate in hiring. The firm may have a patriarchal work culture. It also may have a relationship with an external patriarchal cultural order, such as an ‘old boys club’. There can be correction of the market through consumer responsibility and through the responsibility of the employer to treat others with respect and friendship. Cultural change can also be influenced through corporate responsibility, values-based and externalities-based boycotts, strikes, and protests, and/or by some kind of more or less active government intervention. Communal activities and organizations may help to supplement the individualistic nature of markets and aid the change in society and culture which may be necessary for markets to better serve the peoples’ needs.

In addition to recognizing the importance of culture, Austrian economists might also consider a purely economic corrective that must be made not just to the really existing markets, which are constrained by intervention, but which also would have to be made to any "starting today" purely free markets, as might be imagined by Locke, Nozick, or Rothbard. If the market were to be declared unleashed and free today, never again to be interfered with by any government, when the music stops some people will have nicer chairs than others. For example some will have vast land, resources, and capital while others have none. Not all of this will be earned in a way that even Rothbard would consider fair; and in the market system any advantage, be it from inheriting land wealth or the luck of intelligence, good parents, and healthy body, compounds the person's future advantage and market power.

There is arguably a responsibility for the people as a democratic collective beyond the simple protection of individual rights to life and property: to distribute the value of the unworked land and mineral resources from a 'natural resource fund'. This distribution or redistribution might be organized in a number of ways, from a basic income guarantee to a set of rules to govern firms that differs from today’s limited liability corporation laws, and this choice will have effects that interact with and aid cultural change. The Austrian framework of evolutionary spontaneous order made up of individuals acting, modified by an understanding of evolutionary cultural change and the right of all individuals to a portion of the value of natural resources, provides a powerful theoretical starting point for bridging the gap between free market and market socialist policy perspectives.

This collection aims open discussion between Austrian and market socialist economists and political scientists, explore overlaps and intersections of theory, and begin to find common ground. Essays will consider morality and anarchy, democracy, freedom and hierarchy, the interactions of spontaneous orders, how different forms of organization may facilitate different kinds of culture, morality, and social interaction, and other theoretical and practical questions. Contributions will come from many schools of thought and many perspectives, including communitarian, communist, free market, and anarchist; and there will be contributions from economists and other social scientists of all sorts, including historians, political scientists, possibly anthropologists, and in particular market socialists and anarchists of all stripes. Spontaneous order and other Austrian theories will be complemented with consideration of culture and other insights from less free-market schools of thought and used to analyze various forms of social and economic organization. Some of these include: corporation-status, co-operatives, communitarian structures, income supports, land redistribution, subsistence communities, anarchy of private property and in communal societies, decentralized democracy, and other political structures. 

Committed Contributors:

Rob F. Garnett Jr., Texas Christian University

Randall Holcombe, Florida State University

Troy Camplin, PhD., Independent

Leslie Marsh, New England Institute of Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Studies,

University of New England

Peter Abell, London School of Economics

Anitra Nelson, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Gus diZerega, Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders, Atlas Economic Research

Foundation

Possible Reprints:

Carlo Zappia, Università degli Studi di Siena, “The economics of information, market socialism and Hayek's legacy”

Timothy Sandefeur, The Pacific Legal Foundation, “Some Problems with Spontaneous Order”, The Independent Review

Possible Contributors:

Raymond Plant, Kings College

David Graeber, Goldsmiths, University of London

Gerald Gauss, University of Arizona

Peter G. Klein, University of Missouri

Michael J. Ellman, University of Amsterdam

James A. Yunker, Western Illinois University

David Prychitko, Northern Michigan University

Edward P. Stringham, Fayetteville State University

Gary Chartier, La Sierra University

4) Proposed Chapter Outline:

Part One: Anarchy and Spontaneous Order

1. Introduction (Guinevere Nell)

2.  “Spontaneous Order and the Market’s Complex Relationship with Democracy” (Gus diZerega)

3.  “The Spontaneous Orders of Market and Society” (Troy Camplin)

4.  “The Emergent Market Order and Complexity” (Leslie Marsh)

5. “The Market System and Firms as Knowledge Repositories”, (Randall Holcombe)

Part Two: Criticisms of the Market and Possible Alternatives

1. “The New Market Socialism” (Peter Abell)

2.  “Money, Markets, and a Non-Market Socialism” (Anitra Nelson)

3. “Hayek and the Postmodern Road to Socialism” (Rob Garnett)

4. “The Evolution of Market Society and A True Third Way” (Guinevere Nell)

Part Three: Further Debate and Possibilities

1. Various rebuttals, rejoinders, and other critiques and essays.

…

6. Conclusion (Guinevere Nell)

5) Market and Competition:

This book will be primarily aimed at Austrian economists, market socialists, and graduate students, but it will also be of interest to political and social scientists, policymakers, and all those with an interest in social justice, economic systems, and social and cultural models. University and research libraries, along with policy institutions, will want to have a copy of it. Academic institutions and policy organizations and their members are potential markets.

Similar titles include:

6) Additional Information:

Approximately 90,000-100,000 words. There may be a few original tables or graphs, but not more than a dozen.

7) Delivery date: What is your current schedule for completing the manuscript?

We anticipate delivering the book in early 2014.

CFP - Austrian economics and Economic Organization

CFP for Essay Collection on Economic Organization

I am re-posting a CFP (it was part of an earlier double-cfp post) in the hopes of finding a couple more interested people, and reminding those who showed interest before, since I plan to submit a proposal for this collection soon. This will be a very exciting, very cool project - see below part of a draft proposal on the collection:

This collection will bring together economists and political scientists with an interest in evolutionary social and cultural change and spontaneous order. Each contributor will offer either a proposal for radical institutional change or an argument against such a proposal. The collection will explore areas of theoretical agreement between Austrian theory and market socialist economics and other heterodox schools of economic and political science. The collection also aims to bridge some of the cultural and policy divisions between free market advocates stressing individual rights and individualistic culture and left-leaning thinkers who stress social justice and a culture of solidarity or collectivism.

Austrian school economic theory recognizes the importance of subjective value, consumer sovereignty, and spontaneous order. The market is not the only spontaneous order in society, and the market order and its surrounding cultural spontaneous order are interconnected and self-reinforcing. Markets may channel profit-driven relaxation of prejudices or may allow a channeling of discrimination and an imposition of winning preferences upon the powerless in the system. The values and preferences of the individuals within a spontaneous order are shaped endogenously, part of the evolution of markets and culture. 

Private property, exchange, and free markets may allow an evolution of culture and society. Yet, a fully free-market system based entirely on private ownership may preclude some aspects of social and cultural freedom. Hierarchy exists within firms and other kinds of economic organization may offer benefits difficult to realize in a system based purely on private ownership; yet public ownership may create hierarchy, bureaucracy, stagnation, and corruption. Market socialist and other heterodox exploration of cultural and social factors may help to inform Austrian theory, while Austrian studies of spontaneous order may offer these schools a more rigorous framework for analyzing economic and social orders. 

 In this collection, spontaneous order and other Austrian theories will be complemented with consideration of culture and other insights from less free-market schools of thought and used to analyze various forms of social and economic organization. Some of these include: corporation-status, co-operatives, communitarian structures, income supports, land redistribution, subsistence communities, anarchy of private property and in communal societies, decentralized democracy, and other political structures.  

Read more background here. I will be updating that page periodically as things come together!

Mitt Romney fundraising #2

I said I would update if I got more info: well, here is the longer "full video". More in an update.

Update 1: cut off at start, then interesting, if somewhat predictable, speech to fundraisers. He argues for free market policies, which may appeal to libertarian and conservative thinkers and voters. The perspective, quite a nice camera shot, allows the viewer to see the servers up close, with Romney and his big financiers in the distance (obviously it was taped by a server, discreetly). Romney defends the free market - he defends his record of defending it to his supporters. But he says that "what gets through to the American consciousness" he has very little control over, because it's the media and what they print that matters.

At 17 mark of first video we hear the question that prompts the main quotable famous moment of the speech. The question is: for the past 3 years the American people have been told 'don't worry, we'll take care of you', so how are you going to do it - how are you going to convince people to take care of themselves? Romney is put on the spot: how are you going to make America libertarian, economically? How are you going to sell free markets? He answers the famous remark about the 47 percent he can't convince, who are dependent on government, and don't pay taxes. What we've got to do is go for the independents - thoughtful people "in the middle." He says: we look at the polls....

And then part 2 jumps to the military - a couple of minutes of tape was lost when camera was shut off. Romney's basic point seems to be "we're not strong enough."  I'll give my thoughts on that in the next post.

Update 2: Romney argues for foreign aggression and cites his book, "No Apology", which apparently (I haven't read it) argues that Obama has been too apologetic, and America should exert more aggressively its power against its "enemies." He also argues that carefully thought out policies described in academic terms won't appeal to voters - even if he is right about everything, this won't be enough to appeal to voters. He reminds us that Obama won on "Hope and Change" not on some sophisticated defense of his policy choices. Do we want more of his "Hope and Change"?

At 5:10 or so a fundraiser says that Obama ran on transparency, but government is more and more run by Washington insiders - he'd worked for Goldwater, but now the government is driven by cronyism, corruption, regulation serves the regulated. Whether you are Tea Party or Occupy, he says, the people are fed up - the government is working for powerful interests not people. This ruins the American ideal of everyone being able to become successful. Tax dollars are not working for the people, but for the politically connected. He cites Solyndra, the corruption of Attorney General Eric Holder, and argues that, if spun the right way, the people recognize this and so this could work politically - Romney should take a stand on this - his recommendation: clean house immediately. Get rid of this cronyism.

Romney: i wish we weren't unionized - then we could go a lot deeper.

This famous snippet is a whole lot different in context!

What does Romney mean here? It sounds like a bit of a sweep-under-the-rug. He doesn't want to give the weighty remarks any thought - he's brushing them aside with a easy comment that "unions" might prevent him from cleaning house. It isn't about cutting the fat in general - and firing union workers - it's about eliminating corruption, and he's blaming his lack of willingness to do this on unionization!

Then he speaks about what he can say to swing voters who previously voted for Obama and wouldn't agree with him on everything - such as economic policy: he says all he can say is "it hasn't worked." Obama said he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent and it hasn't been below 8 percent since. 50 percent of people coming out of school can't get a job, he says; and 50 percent won't graduate high school (is this what he said? Is it true?) ... Obama will vilify him as someone who's been successful, or has closed people's businesses, or laid people off. (Necessary things in an adjusting economy, in order to allow overall growth and health of an economy.) "He'll say I'm a bad guy - and that might work. But I think people now want someone who can make things better."

He then speaks about media appearances, and says he didn't do Saturday Night Live because it wasn't presidential, but he'd done The View a few times. He said that was okay, but risky because out of the five women, only one was conservative. The other four were sharp-tongued and not conservative, especially Whoopi Goldberg, but she said last time that she said "i think i could vote for you" - he said "I must have done something wrong!" -- haha --

Romney: "I'm gonna sit down - oh, wait, Darline, You have the last word."

A female fundraiser speaks up: His wife Ann should appear on the shows, "she is his your best (servant?) your best advocate", another woman agrees, "uh huh," ..."And I mean she connects with the voters...she connects so well, ... And people talk so much about this thing - connecting ...And, someone over there said ... people think of you as a rich guy - and you know that that's not..."

Romney: "You know I'm poor as a church-mouse" ... (laughter)

Romney: "We use Ann sparingly right now - so that people don't get tired of her ...or start attacking."

Fundraiser: "Who gets tired of Ann?" (incredulous)

(Agreement and laughter)

Romney speaks about the important upcoming months, names Hillary Rosen as attacking Ann and giving her a platform, etc. ... She should get on Facebook, social networking, etc..Then he sits down and the rest is chatter. So far I can't distinguish anything much.

Mitt Romney's campaign fundraiser video - so far

I will happily make a second installment of this if and when the full video comes out, but the snippets of Mitt Romney's fundraiser video are interesting enough to tempt commentary. The "full video so far" includes a section of Q & A in which Romney describes 47 percent of voters as Obama-backers "no matter what" and as non-tax-payers who enjoy government hand-outs. He implies that the two are connected: they support Obama because they don't pay taxes and they get government booty.

Romney explains in the his response speech that he is explaining his campaign strategy to fundraisers, and because he has a plan for lowering taxes and reducing government spending, these 47 percent of voters won't be likely to back him - hence they are Obama backers "no matter what", and this is because his plan to lower taxes won't interest them (since they don't pay taxes) and his plan to reduce government spending will annoy them, because they get government hand-outs. But he thinks that his policies will spur growth and help everyone (supposedly). So, his plan is to appeal to the "independent voters" who have not really decided - and presumably do pay taxes or don't get government booty, in the main.

He also says he'd like the full video to be released - so would I. I think this is more "plain-speaking" than we usually get in politics - and whether you agree with the free-market ideology Romney presents to his fundraisers or not, this is a good debate to be having. Of course, I'm not saying that Romney is telling the truth even to his fundraisers (maybe he lies the most to them!) but at least we see what he says to them (thank you technology!) and can discuss it.

On free markets, Romney is so-far all talk and no plan of action--his platform does not live up to the free-market talk (as with most Republicans of the last several decades at least). Whether it would be good or bad, the rhetoric and reality don't meet. (In my opinion, the difference between Obama and Romney is likely slim on civil liberties; on foreign policy Romney might be worse--more aggressive; economic policy might matter a bit on progressivity of taxes and maybe escalation of spending; but the biggest difference might be in social policy.)

But, this kind of open discussion about his fundraising speech at least puts it on the table in a way that prepared public speeches tend not to. Let's talk about those 47 percent and whether they will benefit from his free-market ideology--and from his actual platform--and discuss what his policies should be, so that everyone benefits and everyone can agree on it. And let's compare what fundraisers hear (I await the full speech!), what the public hears, what is in the actual policy platform, and what eventually gets put in place.

Malcolm X and "Buying Local"

In the past I have argued against the "buying local" concept, for example I have a section in Rediscovering Fire in which I quote Brian Dunning's piece on the fallacy of locally grown produce, and relate it to supply and distribution issues which came to light in the centrally planned Soviet economy. I stand by my arguments.

However, in reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X for Econlog's book club (part 2 is here) I have given more thought to an issue which is populist, but which many economists including Austrians, often overlook (generally white Malcolm X would remind us, or privileged--"bourgeois" economists as Marxists would say).

Malcolm X argues (p. 281 and also earlier) that blacks in America, having been first literally enslaved and then treated to segregation, racial hatred, and generally "kept under the white man's boot", have also been spending what money they earn at white businesses. Instead, they should be building their own businesses and decent homes, rather than being kept in a ghetto created by their "enemy". They should patronize their own kind. This would also be the only way to get respect. A race or ethnic group can never get respect until he is doing his own thing.

Malcolm X mentions other minorities, including immigrants and Jews in particular, having their own businesses, and often only patronizing only these. One can think of many examples of immigrant minorities helping one-another upon arrival and spending most of their money in their immigrant community as they would prefer to help their struggling group rather than spread their money all around to big corporations and others less in need. 

Of course some would argue that the exchanges were voluntary and the Jewish businesses had helped the black communities (ghettoes, as he describes them) by offering cheaper goods than had previously been available, and so on. It’s not exploitation, they would argue. But is Malcolm X right that if other communities are helping themselves as he argues the Jews and whites were, and the blacks were relying on white and Jewish businesses – those same defenders of voluntary exchange would say “sure, they should start businesses, but they should not be against Jewish businesses in the meantime, if they serve them well”, but shouldn’t they instead follow Malcolm X’s suggestion and build their own businesses instead, and not patronize the Jewish establishments even if in the short term they might offer a better deal—because then his black comrades could have a better chance to establish their businesses and begin to make enough profit to slowly become as competitive as the Jewish ones, so it would be only a short-term investment from community members? 

On p. 289, he speaks about hearing Jews speak in crowds, their sensitivity, which he understands (He also mentions having own country, as Jews have in Israel (p. 283-284), and he obviously has respect and sympathises & empathises with their long struggle, and murder by NAZI's, and continued struggle.) He then talks about Jews using their abilities in business to sell in the ghetto. Malcolm X respects that they have, perhaps by banding together as a group for so long and helping each other, as he argued that blacks should do, the Jews have become strong, doing well for themselves, as a group. He also argues that whites do this—protect each other, in part by exploiting and hating blacks, doing nothing good for them, protecting their own instead. For example, he recalls when he had a burglary ring with black men and white women in it, and when caught (by a Jewish jeweler) and went to court the white girls got no prison time and very short rehabilitation sentences while Malcolm and his (male) black mates got ten years, likely in part due to the assumption that they had corrupted – and slept with, to them 'defiled', 'contaminated' – the white girls. His lawyer as much confirmed this.

So he says the Jews have been exploiting the blacks, by coming into their community and selling them things and taking the money out to be spent in Jewish (and white) areas. And perhaps other races had been banding together more, and by spending money in their own establishments and helping one-another start businesses, they had succeeded as groups, while blacks had been left behind. So, Malcolm X has made a case for "buying local." Does his case have merit? Or is this mere racism? After all, why must we separate by race or ethnicity to help "our own"? Well, if the other groups have done it and have done well by it, then why not? Perhaps it is necessary at some point. Perhaps it is a step in development - not of an industry or country but of a group which tends to cluster together, on a smaller scale, whether by race, ethnicity, or other factor--even a town or regional community. Particularly if other groups are doing the same--protecting their own. (Of course, one wants to avoid a vicious cycle here: perhaps the core issue is that the majority has protected itself, not that minorities need to protect themselves; still it indicates that there is a theory worth considering regarding "buying local".)

Of course it does not mean (as the mises.org article assumes) that every purchase must be kept strictly to those in the group--Malcolm X would not say that blacks should not go to white hospitals while there is no black hospital yet--but that when possible purchase within the given (e.g, black) community should be encouraged and the community should support its own (e.g., with cheap loans and rents) as they endeavor to build their own substitutes and compete with those from the outside, until they have built a strong community of their own. Then, when they are equal, they can "integrate" perhaps -- as Malcolm X says, integration into the "white man's world" is not true integration as its sold, it is merely begging for scraps.

Finally, another group aside from races and ethnic and regional groups is sexes - women have an ingrained group to contend with that supported each other: men. As we all know, old boys' networks allowed men to help each other, and now women can do the same in order to even the playing field. 

Fly in the Austrian Ointment

The following should be read with a smile (and an open mind):

Austrian Argument Fail: Hair of the Dog Works!

There is a famous Austrian argument based on a metaphor that ‘hair of the dog’ is not the answer in the economy. Of course, it relies upon an implicit argument about ‘hair of the dog’ in its original form: booze. But it fails in its analysis of the original 'hair of the dog'.

Austrian arguments regarding the economy boil down to taking zero activist intervention in the economy at any time, and everywhere possible releasing it from state control. The Austrian metaphor about ‘hair of the dog’ is most often made with regard to central banking policy. The metaphor implies that printing money—in the metaphor, drinking—is the culprit of a crisis, and ‘hair of the dog’ (a bit more printing of money once the crisis hits) is a useless policy that exacerbates the problem.

The Austrian argument regarding monetary policy—and by implication alcohol—is that ‘hair of the dog’ does not cure the hangover but rather delays and prolongs the problem. However, this argument, at least for those who enjoy the occasional boozer, rings rather hollow. ‘Hair of the dog’ does nothing? It doesn’t take the edge off a little bit, and maybe extend the party into the next day for a short time, taking the place of what would be a rather nasty headache and come-down? Does it not relieve the pain and offer a happy morning, generally not causing any ill side-effects, and perhaps even helping the next evening to usher in a pleasant night’s sleep? Anyone who likes drinking must agree that it does, or at least can, do this.

For anyone who actually enjoys a boozer now and again, it’s well known that ‘hair of the dog’ indeed can be a good remedy. It isn’t a useless aggravator of some problem – unless, as a teetotaler, one sees all alcohol as a useless and negative ‘problem.’ But this is mere alcohol-bias, not a cause-and-effect argument about 'hair of the dog'.

In short, all the Austrian metaphor is implying is that alcohol—or central banking—is bad. It’s bad, and having more in the morning is also bad. And nothing good can come of it. That’s it – the fed, and your whiskey, are bad, bad, bad. But what if you are not a teetotaler, and you don't see all booze as bad?

Then perhaps you would not agree that a little short-term boost via a swig of whiskey is all bad. Perhaps it's just what the doctor ordered. Perhaps it's a handy way to get by - and makes the party the night before a night to remember, instead of a nightmare of a headache. In that case, the whole Austrian ballgame is lost. Both the binge/boom -party and the crash-recovery are alright, and the once every-seven-years cycle is just having-the-occasional-binge. So what? Isn't that a nice part of life?

But then central banking is defended--it's a party, we all had fun. See you next time!

Related: The Efficient Muffin Hypothesis.

Obama's Plan

I have not heard the speeches from the conventions in full, but Politico told me this by email:

"The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And I'm asking you to choose that future. I'm asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country - goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation," Obama will say, according to excerpts released by his campaign. "That's what we can do in the next four years, and that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States."

Not only the language but the overall message from Obama seems to be that he, unlike Romney, will set targets for different industries, and guide the economy in a certain direction which he thinks is superior to the one it is currently going in (already heavily influenced by intervention), or the one it would naturally go in, left free from political interference. He has a plan, and intends to use political power to enforce it. Good luck with that, Obama.