« Markets in everything? | Main | Economics positions: who Obama should appoint and why »
Imagining the button
Via Angus (and do read his snark on TFP), here is Paul Samuelson:
Libertarians are not just bad emotional cripples. They are also bad advice givers.
(Are there "good" emotional cripples?) Four points should be noted:
1) Paul Samuelson is one of the truly great economists of the 20th century.
2) Hayek did in fact underestimate the robustness of liberty in social welfare states, though it is worth noting that his Constitution of Liberty very much endorses a social safety net and many other policies of the German FDP of that time.
3) This is the same Paul Samuelson who argued, as late as 1989, that the performance of the Soviet economy was a refutation of Hayek's critique of central planning.
4) When I see people writing sentences of this kind, I imagine them pressing a little button which makes them temporarily less intelligent. Because, indeed, that is how one's brain responds when one employs this kind of emotionally charged rhetoric.
As you go through life and read various writers, I want you to keep this idea of the button in mind. As you are reading, think "Ah, he [she] is pressing the button now!"
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
I don't know, but it does seem that an awful lot of libertarians have little understanding of human nature.
Posted by: Dirk at Nov 20, 2008 12:33:41 PM
Dirk,
Do you mean that libertarians believe humans are intrinsically good? That would be false. On the other hand do you mean that libertarians over rely on self-interest, and underestimate the power of other regarding preferences? Specify, so we can argue more effectively, and hopefully come to an agreement.
Posted by: Dan in EuroLand at Nov 20, 2008 12:46:26 PM
>> "it does seem that an awful lot of libertarians have little understanding of human nature."
I actually find the opposite to be true in my limited experience.
Posted by: Speedmaster at Nov 20, 2008 12:49:07 PM
I think point #3 is particularly d@mning.
Posted by: Speedmaster at Nov 20, 2008 12:52:06 PM
Very useful advice. Now can you tell me how I can hide the button?
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Nov 20, 2008 12:54:26 PM
(Are there "good" emotional cripples?)
"Emotional cripples" describes most people when you really get to know them. YMMV.
the performance of the Soviet economy was a refutation of Hayek's critique of central planning.
Hey, it's still going strong! OK, well, it morphed just a bit. It is, now, a more transparently criminal enterprise. But then I guess we could say that about the U.S. economy these days....
awful lot of libertarians have little understanding of human nature.
The older I get it seems just the opposite to me: libertarians have a great understanding of human nature. But most seem to lack the "political skills" of obfuscation and false promises that successful Dems and Repubs possess in abundance.
Posted by: at Nov 20, 2008 12:56:55 PM
Assuming Samuelson hasn't pushed your buttons excessively, it would be interesting to read how you grapple with the ideas he puts forth instead of (or in addition to) speculating about his psychology.
Are countries like "Switzerland, Britain, the US, the Scandinavian countries, and the Pacific Rim" on the Road to Serfdom?
Or do "citizenries there report high indexes of 'happiness' and enjoy broad freedoms of speech and belief"?
Likewise, is "inequality ... the necessary price to encourage dynamic progress via technological and managerial innovations" or does it breed "dysfunctional shortfalls"?
What's your reading of the evidence?
Posted by: a student of economics at Nov 20, 2008 1:00:45 PM
I like this. Also, the point at which you imagine the button is probably about the point at which I want to throw something at the writer. Which makes it worse: not only are they temporarily less intelligent but they are making me temporarily less intelligent also by reading it!
Posted by: Kat at Nov 20, 2008 1:02:32 PM
Wow, Krugman's button must be getting pretty warn down by now.
Posted by: Gus at Nov 20, 2008 1:11:10 PM
By the way, the full article of Sameulson's is pretty interesting (and very short). The rest of it is far more interesting, at least to me, than the flippant snippet that attracted the attention of Tyler and Angus. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,590034,00.html
Here are the first two sentences:
Based on my observations of economic history, both short run and long run, I believe that there is no satisfactory alternative to market systems as a way of organizing both economically poor and economically rich populations.
However, using markets is not the same thing as unregulated capitalism so beloved by libertarians.
Posted by: a student of economics at Nov 20, 2008 1:11:45 PM
Point No. 3 refutes point No. 1.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Nov 20, 2008 1:25:50 PM
ASOE, I found the article to be somewhat interesting but very unsatisfying. Nothing but vague generalities. "We should regulate, but do it well." Oh okay, we just have to do it well, why didn't I think of that?
Posted by: Cliff at Nov 20, 2008 1:29:44 PM
I clicked on the Samuelson link and it's only fair to add that his opinion was based on CIA statistics about Soviet growth that were widely believed. That same passage even quotes a conservative Yale economist to that effect. That said, the emotional cripple remark was certainly uncalled for.
Posted by: Phil P at Nov 20, 2008 1:35:07 PM
Cliff, I'm glad you found his point about the quality regulation rather than the quantity to be obvious. Unfortunately, most of the punditry isn't as enlightened -- the reigning debate is about the dangerous oversimplification of more vs. less regulation.
Samuelson is most concerned that the pendulum will now swing too far toward more regulation, due to the failures of the Bush administration. Tyler made a similar point earlier about responses to the credit crisis, and I think it's valid.
Posted by: a student of economics at Nov 20, 2008 1:41:52 PM
I am aware of Samuelson poking at Hayek over the failure of the social democracies
to have gone on a "road to serfdom" to either command socialism or fascism, but I do
not remember him specifically mentioning Hayek in connection with his discussion of
the "successes" of the Soviet economy. I would suggest you provide an actual quote
on that one, Tyler.
It is certainly true that Samuelson considered the centrally planned command economy
of the USSR to have "delivered the goods" in a basic way, enough military hardware to
defeat Hitler in WW II and no blatant shortages of food or housing or clothing or other
basic necessities by the late 1980s, although he was fully aware of the propensity for
lines to form and quality and variety of goods to be low and the rate of technological
change to be less than spectacular. In that regard, Samuelson was not all that far off
from most observers and pretty much all other introductory textbookd of the day, and
also the CIA.
Regarding the last point, many have hooted over the failure of the CIA to call the
collapse of the Soviet bloc, and there were some folks who did call it, but before
anyone gets too hooty over the CIA, it should be kept in mind that back in the USSR,
the central planners were using CIA numbers to do their own planning, their Hayekian
information problems being so severe that they were counting on those. No wonder they
collapsed, :-).
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 20, 2008 1:44:28 PM
Hey, I don't want to be too hard on you Tyler, but the logical flow of this post is a little wanting. I'm not sure that the four points really relate to each other or bolster you're main argument against a certain type of argumentation. I wouldn't bother to mention it, and I know I'm being a little uptight, but I had to read this like four times because I thought I was missing something.
In general, I love the blog and this is no big deal. Just keeping you honest. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: steve at Nov 20, 2008 1:50:41 PM
Oops, that "you're" should be a "your." Kind of undermined my pretense of having any authority on matters of style there. Oh well...
Posted by: steve at Nov 20, 2008 1:53:06 PM
Steve, maybe Tyler was just trying to show that he, too, could "push the button" by invoking a comment from 2 decades ago praising some aspect of the totalitarian soviet system -- a guaranteed way to invoke an emotional response in readers and I suppose, himself :)
Posted by: a student of economics at Nov 20, 2008 1:56:23 PM
Does the fact that I'd strangle him on sight mean I am or am not an emotional cripple?
I think you'll probably find this place one of the few where you find people making the distinction between quantity versus quality.
Noone else is calling for improved regulation. The reg hawks are all saying "the culture of de-regulation..."
While I would agree Bush was bad, I don't believe Democrats will improve it greatly.
I personally think they can't do quality, because they didn't, so calls for more quantity are really calls for lower quality, couched in opportunistic statist blather, but that doesn't mean I don't make the distinction.
Back to Samuelson, I could use his own logic against him. We have some pretty frickin' large inequality before anyone gets their panties in a knot over it. And, if the economy was still crankin' along, noone would care still.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 20, 2008 1:58:16 PM
"President George W. Bush will figure in the history books as the worst president in the 234 years of US history. One of his inevitable legacies will be, among other things, the danger in 2009-2014 of a US majority that swings leftward far past center. If America turns protectionist, blame past Republican deregulating -- a fine instance of the Law of the Unintended Consequences."
I said this 8 years ago. Glad he's catching up.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 20, 2008 2:02:16 PM
1) not sure what paul samuelson means by "emotional cripples." he could saying that libertarians lack empathy for others, or maybe that they don't understand human nature. Or possibly both.
2) it's certainly the case that most libertarians are rich people. They are almost never poor. so, like Mr. samuelson, we might question the degree to which libertarianism is a deeply-held ideological commitment, as opposed to a self-justification for the raking in of as much shiny jewelery as possible ("they stole my stuff!!"). does this make libertarians greedy, selfish money hoarders? Of course.
2) on the other hand, are libertarians more greedy and selfish than other people? Or is it the case that most people, in fact, regardless of their professed ideals, are greedy, selfish money hoarders? I'm inclined to agree with the latter point. the poor are socialists because they want more stuff, not because they care about others. libertarians are bad people but not uniquely so.
3) in regards to the charge that libertarians have a warped view of human nature, i think this probably paints too broad a brush on a very diverse and complicated set of philosophies. there's no doubt that, say, Ayn Rand has completely lost her grip on reality. But ayn rand hardly speaks for all libertarians. And it seems unfair to label Tyler Cowen a "emotional cripple." Especially here in the west, most of us hold certain libertarian ideas. We believe in property and freedom of speech and association, that government ought to stay out of our private lives and that the capitalist free market is one of the great achievements of human society. in this sense libertarianism is very vibrant and, indeed, central to our political conversation.
the charge I would bring against the hardcore Ayn Randian-like ideologues is the same one i'd make about the Marxists or the neoconservatives or the techno-utopists: too much paper theory, not enough attachment to the real world. Too many righteous crayon-scrawlings about the Theory of Everything, and not enough pragmatic common sense. We value the free market, but does that mean we should deregulate everything? If Wall Street collapses, should we let it fall without even trying to do anything, because a Great Depression will be good for us? If you think so, then you are an emotional cripple. You don't understand anything but paper.
Posted by: raft at Nov 20, 2008 2:17:03 PM
Samuelson,
"using markets is not the same thing as unregulated capitalism so beloved by libertarians. Such systems cannot regulate themselves, either micro-economically or macro-economically. Wherever tried they systematically breed intolerable inequalities."
What is he referring to as real-life examples?
The answer will shed a lot of light of his mastery of proper mastery of terms, definitions and understanding what libertarians actually say...all of which I will show his mastery of such terms to be quite poor.
It's discouraging to see a PhD in economics speak in such a sloppy straw man pronouncements. When people like Samuelson are willing to say things in major magazines that are better suited to the gutter Daily Kos, you know integrity is in short supply even among the great thinkers when it comes to scoring ideological points in public.
Posted by: John V at Nov 20, 2008 2:22:18 PM
Andrew: "Does the fact that I'd strangle him on sight mean I am or am not an emotional cripple?"
it means you're a cowardly liar who can make anonymous threats on the internet but would most likely be licking Paul Samuelson's shoes if you ever met him face to face.
oh, that was a joke? consider this post one too...
Posted by: raft at Nov 20, 2008 2:24:29 PM
John V: The answer will shed a lot of light of his mastery of proper mastery of terms, definitions and understanding what libertarians actually say...all of which I will show his mastery of such terms to be quite poor.
well... what do you guys say? Libertarianism is notoriously contradictory and resistant to specific definition. As far as I can the only real policy which unites all of you is "they stole my money!!", not exactly a well-thought out theory, but please, enlighten me and Paul Samuelson.
Posted by: raft at Nov 20, 2008 2:31:00 PM
At the time Samuelson was using the CIA numbers on the Soviets the major criticism of the CIA was from the right wing and the future neo-cons who argued that the CIA was massively underestimating Soviet growth. Remember team B.
Future events proved him wrong, but at the time he made the statements the actual data supported what Samuelson was saying.
Posted by: spencer at Nov 20, 2008 2:32:01 PM
