I spoke at the All Party Parliamentary Group on Economics, Money and Banking yesterday afternoon.
I often prepare a speech for such events and then don't give it; at least not in the precise form I wrote it. This was one such occasion. But it seems a shame to waste a good speech, so here's near enough what I said:
Thanks for asking me to speak
I have only a few minutes to speak this afternoon at an event sponsored, I note, by organisations with which I have little political or economic sympathy so let me set out my argument up front in case I don't get time later.
Fist of all I make the vital point that as a chartered accountant, a successful entrepreneur and director of quite a number of companies over many years nothing I am going to say this afternoon should suggest I have a problem with much of what happen in the market in the UK. I don't. I have specific criticisms of certain aspects of that market but the market is and will be in any future I can imagine a fundamental and essential part of the UK economy.
But let's be clear: the market I've worked in is nothing like the one that right wing economic think tanks think exist. It's nothing remotely like that think tank world, at all.
Like democracy we tolerate the market I know because it's the best of the worst options we've tried for meeting some of the needs of people in this country and elsewhere.
It's highly imperfect.
The data it uses is terrible.
No one profit maximise.
Monopoly power is far too prevalent.
Far too many consumers have little or no power to exercise choice because of limitations in their economic circumstances and so they are exploited. Market outcomes for them are distinctly suboptimal, whether with regard to employment, consumption, saving or access for anything else.
And the regulation that is fundamental to making that market work is seriously deficient, not least because that regulation assumes that the market that exists is nothing like the one that is out there.
The result is that in the real world — the one in which I have worked — the idea that the market is able to deliver optimal outcomes for the people of this country is rightly treated as pure undiluted nonsense. That outcome can only happen when we have a perfect market. And we just don't have one.
The result is that whilst the market is great it's absolutely lost unless it has the foundations of a strong state on which it can be built. Let me put it like this. Think of a cappuccino. The cup is society. The black coffee is the foundation on which society is built — and that is the state. On top of that is the white frothy milk of the private sector and what really confuses us, because in reality the coffee and frothy milk have to mix together to deliver the product, is that what we see is the froth on top, and most especially the hot chocolate or nutmeg.
That stuff — the stuff we see — the stuff that's exciting in life — is provided by a small part of the private sector but it is only in that area, where most of us have very real but severely budget limited choice on how we spend the small part of our income over which we really have much discretionary control, that we think we see the real market at work. That leads to the myth that markets are great, create choice and deliver all good things.
The impression is a myth. Underneath that froth there's a state that works in intimate partnership with quite large parts of the private sector.
The state creates the property rights that allow there to be a private sector.
And it should at the very least properly regulate these sets of property rights — such as the availability of limited liability and its abuse — abuse that is such a feature of current market failure.
As we also all now know, the state is also guarantor of last resort: the financial crisis proved that.
But these are fundamentals. More important is the positive role of the state. Like it or not we live in a time when the private sector is to very large degree not innovating. Indeed it's pretty much not investing at all either. That's because Keynes' ‘paradox of thrift' is ruling the roost out there right now. In this situation the state has a dual role. It is the inspiration of much innovation in the economy. By saying it wants reform the state stimulates the private sector to spend. Alternative energy for example would not happen without it, for example, or nuclear power come to that.
I genuinely believe that right now is a time for lots of new regulation for that reason — it delivers real reform that stimulate markets. And we certainly need that stimulus.
That's because the sad fact is that Keynes rightly said in the 30s that markets can settle on equilibrium where there is also unemployment. That's where we are and I suspect across left and right and for different reasons maybe we all agree that the current level of unemployment is unacceptable.
But we have to recognise that this failure to employ people is a market externality: a cost of market failure like so many costs of market failure that I feel it is beholden on the state to address. And in this case it can address that problem: it can and should borrow and spend now. Yes I mean that: it is the one and only way out of our recession. That and changing pension regulation to require that 25% of all pension contributions be invested in job creation could deliver all the stimulus to economic activity this economy needs to get us out of the mess we're in.
But let's add some more functions for the state in that case. It doesn't just correct for the externalities of the market — such as failing to invest. It has to deliver some services that we simply could not afford that the market deliver. Heath is the perfect example. The UK simply cannot afford competition in health care. All the costs of admin which have burdened the NHS so heavily are the result of the introduction of spurious market systems in the NHS creating massive costs that have not delivered front line gains. And the only thing worse than that faux competition would be real competition.
Real competition requires two things. One is excess capacity to allow for choice. The second is the option for failure.
Well, we spend 8% of GDP on health and if we want to create lots of excess capacity to allow for real choice then we'll have to substantially increase that percentage — all of which will, be wasted because it will be excess capacity. That's a cost we can't afford. A cost of duplication.
And we can't afford failure either: failure in the NHS will always hurt real people first. Organisations will fail second.
So the conditions for a market in heath care for all I the UK simply don't exist, any more than they do in education, transport infrastructure, social care, pensions and quite a lot of other things too. So the state has to supply. It is the only efficient supplier there is within the resources we have to commit for the benefits we want. The recent Commonwealth Fund report on the US revealed that. The US delivers worse outcomes at more than double cost to the UK.
So the state is actually the most efficient supplier of many services that the people of the UK want and if it opts out of supplying them all it does is grant a quasi monopoly within a regulated environment to a favoured corporate entity that has only upside gain and no real down side risk: whatever else you call that it's not delivery of the benefits of the market for the consumer.
So we have and need a strong state in this country. Not only a strong state as the foundation of the cappuccino of an economy we have — but one which has a good saucer too — because that's the welfare state that makes sure people don't fall through the system — oh and democracy too because that's the spoon that determines the final mix and adds in the sweetens that make the whole thing palatable to so many.
But there's a pre-condition of this. It's the existence of a courageous state. A state populated by politicians who believe in the merits of the government that they've been elected to run, of ministers who believe that they add to human well being and do not harm it as so many of the existing team seem to do.
That's why The Courageous State the title of my forthcoming book — which will be out for the party conference season. And it's, in my opinion, the only salvation available for our economy, but most importantly too for our markets — where right now the milk is threatening to crowd out the coffee and deliver us something which is far removed from the democratically controlled mixed economy that the people of this country desire.
You can deny that if you like — but if you do I stress one thing: you're not living in the real world out there. And when policy isn't based on reality that's when the problems really begin.
Thank you.
It went down well - with me alone I think as I'm afraid to say the left were somewhat under-represented at this event which turned out to be a right wing think tank love-in with even Jesse Norman appearing to be a left winder to this audience.
But I certainly delivered broadsides when it came to my answers to their questions, except that is for the ones that neither Jesse Norman oir I could understand - and there were one or two of them.
It was odd to find myself siding with a Tory against the right - but then, when faced with those who argue that democratic government has no legitimacy when it comes to creating regulation which should be made competitively by the market without mention of accountability then you realise you are up against a very real threat to society itself.
And that's why all democrats have to stand up against organisations like the Institute for Economic Affairs that promote such ideas.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for this blog Richard, a good read. I hoped you responded to that particular question re: regulation at the end by playing the Somalia video…
I referred to failed states – and yes, Somalia and Sudan
It washed right over Pennington’s head
Richard – It didn’t wash over my head at all – i wasn’t given an opportunity to respond to that particular aside. On Somalia specifically may I refer you to some of the most recent peer-reviewed research – go to the website of Peter Leeson and download his papers on the matter. I hope you enjoy it, and that it doesn’t ‘wash over your head’.
Thanks
Mark P.
Peer reviewed does not mean good
I know from experience
It means conforming to a consensus – that is all
And I’ve noted the argument here – and it is repulsive
Richard, you are quite right that ‘peer-reviewed’ does not equate with good – and especially when it merely conforms to a consensus. You can hardly claim though that Leeson’s work conforms to a consensus – he publishes in journals reviewed by people who do not agree with his overall world-view. It is odd that on the one hand you criticise Leeson’s work for conforming to a consensus when in your comments to Anthony E you point out that the people at GMU are miles away from the mainstream. The mainstream position in economics as we pointed out yesterday is not ‘neo-liberal’, ‘free market’ etc -. it is mildly social democratic – but because social democracy is the ‘consensus view’ that does not necessarily mean it is the right view. As a final note, I find it disappointing that you use the word repulsive to describe an intellectual argument you disagree with. I debate with Marxists and social democrats all of the time and much as I disagree with them I would never claim that their arguments are repulsive.
The idea that the consensus view on economics is social democratic is so utterly absurd that you make a fool of yourself by suggesting it. But then, as I said on Wednesday, you appear to exist on a planet far removed from the reality that either Jesse Norman or I recognise.
And whilst I would agree with you that a consensus is not necessarily correct – because of course there are occasions when it is clear that is not true – to view as you do the process of democracy that reflects, albeit imperfectly, a consensus view on most occasions as illegitimate and unable to regulate because it might (wholly appropriately) restrict the right of the market that operates in the interests of a tiny elite to exploit the vast majority is as I rightly described it utterly repulsive.
As I have made clear, I can readily accept the right of many to disagree with me politically. But I maintain with equal vigour my right to say those who wish to exploit – whether from left or right – represent a threat to society itself. I certainly put the views I heard you express well and truly in that category. You are not putting forward what I would call an intellectual argument – you are arguing for abuse and exploitation and the overthrow of our society as we know it. And that is beyond the pale of acceptability and has to be described for what it is.
Richard,
The video of the event will be put up for all to see very soon. I defy anyone who actually listens to what I say – as opposed to the grotesque caricature that you present of it – to claim that my words are those of someone who ‘wishes to exploit’. Even if someone disagrees with me and believes that the effect of what I advocate would be to facilitate ‘exploitation’ there is absolutely no justification for claiming that I want to exploit other people or that as you have claimed in a response to Anthony E that those who advocate market liberal ideas want to ‘oppress the poor’. These are ad hominem attacks unworthy of someone who wishes to be part of civilised public discourse.
Mark P.
Oh dear – have I riled you?
Ad hominem? Not at all – your presentation disgusted me – and very clearly Jesse Norman too – and would any decent person. That’s no grotesque caricature: that’s a statement of fact – and it’s a statement most people would disagree with.
You ridiculed democracy and denied its legitimacy.
You said the state had no role at all in most economic activity and it’s ability to protect people from mistakes was not just to be regretted but was wrong – people must suffer the consequences of those mistakes, you said. You showed not a hint of compassion for those who might suffer through no fault of their own as a result – however many they might
You lauded all those mechanisms that have been so carefully constructed to ensure that the ordinary people of the this country and others have seen their economic condition stagnate whilst that of an elite – an elite the organisations with which you seem to associate consciously went out to serve – have grwon out of all proportion
The callous indifference of your approach (of so safely expounded from the safe position of being a state employee!) reminded me quite extraordinarily of Alvin Rabushka, whose work is I know appreciated by many such societies. When I interviewed him in 2006 he said:
We should get rid of welfare programmes, we need to have purely private pensions and get rid of state sponsored pensions. We need private schools and private hospitals and private roads and private mail delivery and private transportation and private everything else. You know government shouldn’t be doing any of that stuff.”
and
“The only thing that really matters in your country is those 5% of the people who create the jobs that the other 95% do. The truth of the matter is a poor person never gave anyone a job, and a poor person never created a company and a poor person never built a business and an ordinary working class guy never drove economic growth and expansion and it’s the top 5% to 10% who generate the growth for the other 90% who pay the taxes to support the 40% in government. So if you don’t feed them [i.e. the 5%] and nurture them and care for them at the end of the day over the long run you’ve got all these other people who have no aspiration for anything more than, you know, having a house and a car and going to the pub. It seems to me that’s not the way you want to run a country in the long run so I think that if the price is some readjustment and maybe some people in the middle in the short run pay a little more those people are going to find their children and their grandchildren will be much better off in the long run. The distributional issue is the one everyone worries about but I think it becomes the tail that wags the whole tax reform and economic dog. If all you’re going to do is worry about overnight winners and losers in a static view of life you’re going to consign yourself to a slow stagnation.”
As for the role of government he said:
“I think we should go back to first principles and causes and ask what government should be doing and the answer is “not a whole lot”. It certainly does way too much and we could certainly get rid of a lot of it. We shouldn’t give people free money. You know, we should get rid of welfare programmes, we need to have purely private pensions and get rid of state sponsored pensions. We need private schools and private hospitals and private roads and private mail delivery and private transportation and private everything else. You know government shouldn’t be doing any of that stuff. And if it didn’t do any of that stuff it wouldn’t need all of that tax money so that’s the fundamental position and as long as you’re going to have government do all that stuff you’re going to have all those high taxes.”
As he also made clear, that then let’s you have a flat tax. But in that case what I wrote for the Guardian last year is true:
“Flat tax is not a serious attempt at taxation, but is instead an exercise in social engineering. That is why its innocent appeal is so dangerous.”
That ‘social engineering’ process is designed, as Rabushka himself say, to ‘take the tax code out of the economy’. In other words, it leaves people wholly dependent upon market forces. The consequence happens to be that politics is neutered on the way because as anyone who follows general elections knows, at the end of the day politics is about the economy. Rabushka and the right wing want to stop that. And if you don’t believe me, John Meadowcroft who writes for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank Margaret Thatcher still supports, said recently when asked if he thought democracy a ‘market institution’ (when undertaking an interview on http://www.transformingbusiness.net) that :
“Democracies and free societies tend to go hand in hand. Having said that, democracy tends to lead to socialist policies, such as protectionism. If democracy leads to property rights and the rule of law, then yes, you need democracy. But otherwise, democracy is not a prerequisite for a market economy. Democracies tend to create very large states. In most European countries, including the UK, nearly half of GDP goes to the state. This is not good for the creation of free markets.”It seems fair to conclude that some in the mainstream the right wing now think democracy can be sacrificed to the market, and I believe that flat tax is part of that process. Which leads to the conclusion that two writers (Hettich and Winer) have put forward that:
“it is possible to have a flat tax, or to have democracy, but not both”
You might differ – but the view seems commonplace.
So yes, your views are not just grotesque, I consider them extreme and a threat to not just the well being of the people of this country but to this country itself as we now know it.
And I suspect the vast majority of people would agree.
A very amusing but accurate analogy with cappuccino, Richard. Not one I would ever have thought of. Adding in the saucer at the end’s a nice little move.
By the way – and I’m sure you have but I’ll mention it anyway – re your book – I assume you’ve read David Harvey’s ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’. It was published in 2005, so written a year earlier I’d guess, so things have moved on a bit regarding some of the example he uses. Nevertheless, it’s very good at exposing the contradictions between neoliberalism in theory and in practice, a good few examples of which you often comment on here (e.g. dismissing the role of the state but milking it for every benefit on offer).
Ivan
Thanks for the tip – yes – it’s good – and I haven’t dragged it out again, but will
Mind you – part 1 of the book is going to the publisher today…20,000 words done in 2 weeks
Think of it as a giant blog…. (probably spelling mistakes and all – buit with editors the other end to get rid of them I hope)
Richard
As a member of the audience for this debate I would like to thank Richard for attending. I thought it was an intellectually stimulating event and highly enjoyable. Just a couple of matters of record – I didn’t notice any “far right” presence at all, and I don’t recollect a discussion of Somalia and Sudan.
With the very greatest of respect, I noted you are an adviser to the Institute of Economic Affairs. By definition, in my opinion and that of many others I know, the far right wing of economics was present as a consequence of its involvement in this event. You may not agree, of course, but then your epicentre of thinking is so far removed from the mainstream that that, almost inevitably, that reflects your perspective.
And yes I did mention Somalia – I suggested Pennington should look at it as an example of a failed state
Firstly, I’m not an advisor to the IEA – I am happy to speak at their events (as are you) and have written for them, but I’ve written for several places. I suppose if you consider the IEA or ASI to be a right wing organisation then yes, there was a right wing presence, but you seem to be using that label primarily as a slur. I am sickened by the insinuation that *my* views are in any way right wing. I just don’t think you’re using that term accurately.
Regarding Somalia (and Sudan), I find it odd that people can imply that classical liberals/libertarians believe that any state without a government is better than any state with a government. It is quite possible that in some situations more government is better than less government. But it is exactly this type of comparative analysis that needs to be done. Indeed there is serious scholarly attention to the idea that anarchy in Somalia is more favourable than the most *likely* alternative form of government. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a theoretically conceivable form of government that might be better than anarchy, but merely that it’s not necessarily the likely alternative.
For example:
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
http://www.fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/
Calls for a “Courageous” state seems to rely on an assumption that such a state is benevolent (and I would also argue, implicitly, omniscient). Your analysis might well be right, but I think this assumption needs to be made explicit and defended.
kind regards.
Oh come on – your say on your web site:
“In April 2011 he joined the IEA’s Shadow Monetary Policy Committee.”
Have you forgotten or have they sacked you?
If that’s not being an advisor what the heck is? The credibility of all you say is hereafter undermined.
And no I don’t treat ‘right wing’ in the sense of IEA and ASI as a slur : that’s far too kind a statement.
Pardon me for noting it but before the meeting began I noted Elizabeth Truss MP asking Mark Pennington where the great new right wing thinking was going to come from which would challenge the role of the state and he answered George Mason University in the USA – where I happen to note you graduated. This is, I think I can fairly say, a den for those who have a loathing for all aspects of government and hate the democratic process seeing it is a threat to freedom.
I don’t use the phrase right wing here is a slur: I use it as a description of those who seek to undermine our way of life, seek to oppress the poor in our society, seek to deny opportunity to the majority and who seek to undermine democracy. That’s not a slur, that a description of an attack on the well-being of the people of this country by a tiny minority who wish to to subject the vast majority to their will.
For details on the SMPC see here: http://www.iea.org.uk/smpc.
I can’t see how you think the IEA might be advised by the SMPC – it’s simply a group of independent economists that offer an opinion on monetary policy. The minutes are published monthly so it’s very transparent. If anything you could say we advise the Bank of England, but since the IEA isn’t in charge of interest rates then no, I am not an advisor.
Again, I want to correct your account – Liz asked who the up and coming “free market” economists were, *not* “right wing”. If she’d have asked Mark about any right wing economists I’m sure he would have been appalled. As would I. I think most people can appreciate that the two aren’t equivalent.
I have to say that I don’t understand your definition of right wing at all. Surely you’d accept that Stalin sought to oppress the poor and deny opportunity to the majority? Are you saying that he was right wing? Doesn’t right wing imply some form of conservatism? A belief in hierarchical social orders? An element of racial or other form of arbitrary discrimination?
Aren’t the BNP right wing?
I’m genuinely interested in your answer.
thanks.
I’m sorry – I call that disingenuous, and rightly so re IEA link
And Liz did say right wing, not free market – and the reply was exactly in the context too – about George Mason from Pennington – who used political polarity of the Nobel prize in his answer and explicitly therefore referred to right wing
I’m sorry – if you can so distort issues it’s really not worth debating
But for the record – you may have noted Stalin called himself a Bolshevik. The outcome was oppression – the motive was different. I noted an inability to differentiate such simple things yesterday. It was very bizarre and commonplace.
Similar to your claim right wing = free market – which is is just typical IEA dissembling
And are BNP right wing? Yes – of course, but of a racist variety. Far right wing comes in differing flavours just like far left does (or by and large did). Foir those like me in the middle each are as repugnant since as you rightly note the outcomes have a lot of similarity in practice. It’s why I oppose both as all democrats do
But democrats don’t argue that states have no legitimacy in regulating – an argument I heard yesterday
Just to recap – I fully acknowledged my work with the IEA on here, and I also refer to it on the front page of my website. I simply corrected your claim that I was an advisor, and then pointed out why the SMPC does not constitute advisory work.
I don’t think I’m distorting anything. To go back to the beginning of this thread, I objected to your characterization of those who disagreed with you as being “far right”. My whole point is that “right wing” is not the same thing as “free market” and it was the latter that you were debating, not the former.
Re Stalin you will need to clarify whether your definition therefore relies on intentions or consequences. You defend your use of the term because you accuse others of “seeking to oppress the poor”. It’s not clear to me whether you are saying this is their goal or an unintended consequence of their actions. Do you think your opponents are evil or just ignorant? Do you think free market groups intend to oppress the poor?
With regard to the BNP, this is where it comes back to being a slur or not. You surely accept that the “racist” wing of the far right is not only sick and deplorable but also (i) well known in the popular conscious and (ii) a different ideology than what you are accusing free market groups of having. This being the case it *is* a slur to use this label, because you do so to drum up revulsion and distaste, and not to paint the most accurate depiction of their beliefs.
I can see we’re not getting anywhere, I just wanted to reiterate to your readers that it was a very enjoyable event, that I wanted to thank you for your contribution, but that I do not want people to believe that it was the “far right” you were debating.
regards.
I think being opposed to the democratic state is a pretty big slur too
And your free market view is not only fundamentally right wing (where else is it unles on another planet as I suggested Pennington was?) buit it’s also set to destroy society as we know it
That’s why most in society find it repulsive, like the BNP
Biut I agree, you don’t get that
Which is why I’m more than happy to state it because you can’t
[…] I’m fascianted to the reaction to one of my blogs this afternoon. […]
[…] I’m fascianted to the reaction to one of my blogs this afternoon. […]
Richard says, The idea that the consensus view on economics is social democratic is so utterly absurd that you make a fool of yourself by suggesting it
Just to reiterate a comment I made during the debate – the majority of the economics profession are Democrats. Here’s a study looking at members of the AEA: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/Klein-Stern%20AJES%202007.pdf. There are others as well. But if you have conflicting evidence I’d be interested in seeing it.
I find it almost staggering that you think this is ‘evidence’
For heaven’s sake look at the world around you
Look at the fact that it’s impossible to become an economist in a university without subscribing to neoliberal economics – yes as commonly understood – I know the extremists like Pennington and the IED define it differently – and your argument shows the fantasy in which you live
The evidence is on the ground
That the economics promoted by neoliberal economists has meant no real wage rises for most working men in the US since 1975 and yet massive increases in the wealth if a few
But some Cosmopolitan style survey is apparently evidence for you
It’s farciacal enough to remind me of the story of the economist who knew sixty nine ways to make love but had never had a partner…..
I note the paper came from George Mason
You aren’t surely asking me to take it seriously as evidence in that case are you?
It’s hardly objective, is it?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your criteria for legitimate evidence. Are you suggesting that Dan Klein fabrigated this research? That the survey respondents lied? Note that it wasn’t published in an purely economic journal, so if you think that it’s the entire economics profession that is corrupt then you need to extend that to the sociology profession as well.
But if peer-reviewed evidence is considered illigitimate, there’s plenty of others. For example The Economist found that more than 40% of economists identified themselves as Democrats in 2008, and were vastlye more supportive of Obama than McCain.
http://www.economist.com/node/12342127?story_id=12342127
I actually think we’re close to agreement though, just based on a fundamental misunderstanding:
it’s impossible to become an economist in a university without subscribing to neoliberal economics — yes as commonly understood — I know the extremists like Pennington and the IED define it differently — and your argument shows the fantasy in which you live
The objection I made to Jesse (and now to you) is *not* about the “commonly understood” definition of “neoliberal”. If you recollect what I said, I did not argue that he/you are using it in a way that contradicts it’s conventional usage. What I tried to do was to point out – as a professional economist – that the conventional usage is *wrong*. I note that you’ve not defined “neoliberal”, but this is something I’ve given a lot of thought to:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neoliberal-Revolution-Eastern-Europe-Transition/dp/1847206379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1310288970&sr=8-1
You *are* conflating neoliberalism with neoclassicisim, and I would agree that there is a large institutional bias within academia for neoclassical economics. But I’ve shown evidence to show that this doesn’t translate into political bias, and the reason is that the concept of market failure is a well known and central part of neoclassical economics.
Consider the likes of JK Galbraith, or Joe Stiglitz, or James Tobin, or Paul Krugman. If it is actually the case that “it’s impossible to become an economist in a university without subscribing to neoliberal economics” then either (a) they are neoliberal economists; or (b) they were/are denied professional acclaim. Both of these strike me a false (surely we agree on that?!)
They disprove your argument because it it their *neoclassicism* that allows them to simultaneously criticise neoliberal policies and yet still rise to the top of their profession.
There is one thing I would grant you – in comparison to the general public economists do appear to be “neoliberal”. Consider Paul Krugman’s work on comparative advantage, for example. However any sensible analysis that attempts to classify the consensus of the profession has to put them somewhere *in between* the views of the public and the views of neoliberal/market fundamentalists/free market economists.
The question I have for you is that if economists tend to be more free market than the general public, even though their political affinity is social democrat, isn’t this strong evidence that it is the power of the ideas that drives their conclusions and not their ideology? In other words the reason you disagree with the majority of professional economists is *not* because of ideological differences. It’s because you think you understand economics better than they do. You may be correct, but that strikes me as a pretty bold claim.
My point about evidence is a simple one – peer review does not legitimise except in the eyes of a narrow rule bound few. I discussed this recently with some academic who laughed at the notion that evidence from non-peer reviewed sources (let’s call them life) are dismissed in many peer reviewed journals. you’re being as narrow minded – how odd for a libertarian!
So narrow minded you crassly take a claim that exists now and apply it to the likes of 1950s politicians trained in the 1930s like Galbraith. Now that’s either gross misunderstanding, just dumb or deliberate obfuscation. I’ll be kind and go for the last .
And yes I know you reject the D J Harvey (2005) view of neoliberalism and would prefer the pure Mont Pelerin vision – but that’s indication of your removal from society, again
I may discuss this in more depth soon – but you’ll come out badly, let me assure you
But coming back to may main point – a Cosmo survey does not prove economics is social democrat any more than it improves your sex life. And quite candidly anyone who believes that has also lost touch with reality or is an risk of falling off the right hand edge of politics
If you re read my post you’ll see that I was not relying solely on peer reviewed evidence. I am not arguing that I’ve “proved” anything – I’m just offering you evidence from a variety of sources (some peer reviewed, others not) and hoping people can make up their own minds.
But let me repeat my question – is Joe Stiglitz neoliberal? Is he denied professional acclaim? If the answer to both is “no” then doesn’t that kind of disprove your point?
As you well know Stiglitz is a) neo-Keynesian which is a branch of neo-classical economics that I think is flawed and b) was appointed before the neoliberal demand became as extreme as it now is
In other words you make no point at all and mine remains intact in its entirety
So you don’t think Stiglitz would get a job today? When did Krugman win his Nobel?! These guys are at the top of their profession.
How many of the people who’ve been hired by the LSE in the last 5 years would you define as neoliberal. I’d say 0.