My understanding of the latest economics work on any trade of between equality and efficiency is not that the trade of is not between equality and growth, but between equality and jobs. Advanced industrial economies which have done well on job creation have seen inequality rise, while countries that have more equal income distributions have higher unemployment. This argument only applies to large economies, becuase it is easier to make corporatist co-ordinating mechanism’s work in small economies.
OT: How does using you blog to recruit somebody fit into the blogs and academia discussion?
Egalitarian Capitalism?
Isn’t this an oxymoron on a par with ‘Military Intelligence’? :-)
You can either have socialism. Or you can have capitalism. All that chaotic nonsense in the middle, over the last century, is what has created all of our problems.
If we have to live under socialism, give me the full-blooded kind every time. At least you knew where you were, with Uncle Joe Stalin. Obey or die.
Trying to combine a system based upon collectivism with an incompatible system based upon individualism just doesn’t work, as Hayek first said back in 1944, in the ‘Road to Serfdom’. Do we really need to read yet another book on this, sixty years later, or two megabytes of PDF, to keep re-realising it?
(BTW, there’s a great cartoon version of ‘Road to Serfdom’ here, for anyone with a few minutes to kill, this morning :)
Andy D: Just to clarify, the title of Kenworthy’s book is Egalitarian Capitalism? — with a question mark. He really does take seriously the suggestion that these are potentially incompatible systems (I doubt the oxymoron is lost on him), but he does so with a look to over-time changes in actual conditions. As Kenworthy writes in the introduction, he’s interested in addressing the problems of egalitarianism and capitalism, not by pitting collectivist versus individualist in a cage match but by examining the conditions under which high employment, low income inequality, and reasonable quality of life can coexist within the bounds of a capitalist structure. He isn’t blind to the criticisms made of the welfare state, but his data suggest that even generous welfare states are able avoid or minimize the predicted tradeoff between equality and growth, provided they make good policy decisions (Sweden’s unreasonably generous sick benefit was disastrous for employment, for instance, but was correctable without abandoning the system entirely).
Even if Kenworthy is right, growth is not the only good thing that capitalism brings. Some of us believe that the individual autonomy and dignity that comes from keeping what you get through free exchange is a good in itself. Now we can argue, and have argued before, over whether this truck-and-bartering autonomy is more important than equality or not. But nevertheless it is a good that may not be fully captured by growth statistics even if it positively correlates with them. And it’s a good which the welfare state seriously impacts even if its impact on overall growth is small.
I think you’re overlooking another possibility: that most of the inequalities of existing capitalism stem from government intervention in the market. As an individualist anarchist, I’d put it this way: capitalism is inegalitarian to the extent that it’s capitalistic; but it’s capitalistic to the extent that it deviates from a genuine free market.
The main effect of the state’s intervention in the market is to cartelize the economy on behalf of big business, to subsidize capital accumulation, or to absorb the operating costs of big business.
Most, if not all, of the Fortune 500 companies could not exist without living on the taxpayer tit. A genuine free market would be almost unimaginably more decentralized and less concentrated than the present system. Much more production would be for local consumption, and wealth would be less polarized. Without government intervention on behalf of capitalists and landlords, at the very least, much less of labor’s product would go to rent, profit, and interest.
“Some of us believe that the individual autonomy and dignity that comes from keeping what you get through free exchange is a good in itself.”
I don’t doubt that some of you do. Some people believe all kinds of things. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people don’t believe that or even think about capitalism in those terms. For those who accept capitalism’s ability to deliver efficiency but who think for ideological or practical resons, that the world should be more equal (according to his statistics most people), it’s a welcome case.
Sorry to be stuffy, but I think it’s not so cool to post job negotiation stuff on websites. It could be very awkward. Think BU?
Alan Schussman writes:
…he’s interested in addressing the problems of egalitarianism and capitalism, not by pitting collectivist versus individualist in a cage…
Thank you for the clarification, on the question mark. It’s nice to know this paper’s author is aware of the irony, in this case.
But I think the point holds that, from first principles, you can know that you cannot blend socialism with capitalism.
Capitalism, at the very simplest level, is a man getting up in the morning, gathering such information as is available to him, rating all the actions he could perform that day, and then choosing the action which he perceives will gain him the most benefit, in his opinion.
Completely forgetting the cost of the socialist executive, which is usually substantial, and ignoring the tendency of those within the socialist executive to also work towards their own personal benefit, another major stumbling block, what socialism always tries to do, by definition, is to make this ordinary man choose whichever action is best for the group.
Now, I’m even going to ignore how it is decided what is best for the group, socialism’s third general stumbling block.
What we come down to is that this ordinary man sees two possible actions in front of him: one he would do, if he were left free, and the other he is being made to do against his will.
Now you may say that the socially desirable action and the individually desirable action are the same action. If so, what do you need socialism for? If free people are going to behave exactly the way you want them to behave, there’s no problem that socialism is necessary to solve.
However, if you do agree to the two actions model, then you have to agree there is always going to be perpetual conflict between the individual and the state, with the individual constantly trying to choose one action and the state constantly trying to make them choose the other, through all the usual processes of re-education, social engineering, indoctrination, and eventually, the noose.
And this is where you end up with the hell on Earth, of constantly being made to work against your own will to satisfy the wishes of the state’s chief executive, who in a perverse way ends up as being the only man in the state who is free to decide his daily actions, all via the personal benefit maximisation mechanism he is denying to all of his subjects.
Now in the less rigid social democratic egalitarian capitalist model, this eternal conflict results in chaos, with the individual always trying to evade their assigned tasks, whenever they can, and eventually either escaping to an environment where they can carry out freely chosen actions, or being crushed underfoot, for resisting the state’s admonitions.
This is because the social democratic model creates a chaotic system where nobody knows, or can decide, which of the two alternative actions an individual has available to them at any moment in time, should be the one carried out.
Hence, the eternal slide from minimal state intervention to maximal state intervention, as increasing controls are imposed to clear up the chaos. Thereby inducing ever more chaos, until eventually total state control needs to be introduced. This removes all uncertainty, and conflict, which is why it is the stable end point of all types of socialism.
Except in Sweden, obviously! :-)
However, it may be that in this rare exception case, with its small size, high sense of family-based community, and harsh climate, there is a very strong tendency for the two actions to often be one and the same action, again obviating the need for the heavy socialist hand usually seen elsewhere.
Though given enough time, totalitarianism will happen in Sweden too, especially if they shut down the escape routes for all those Swedish emigrees.
But, whatever the case, we must all choose. Do we want collectivism or individualism? You can’t have both, except in an unstable temporary sense. And this will always slide towards totalitarianism, for instance by people advocating measures to control what people can or cannot say.
And all the breast-beating and clever political hoop-jumping in the world isn’t going to get round the problem.
Of course, now we need to talk about the cost of the socialist executive, the tendency of the socialist executive to behave in the same personally-benefitting way they despise in all others, and the question of how we choose what action is best for the group.
Well, maybe another day…! ;-)
Unless the state intervenes, there is never a free market, only a semi-market in which the bigger players dominate. Leaving only the lower ROI to most of the people. We have lived that for centuries, and it is the fate of a lot of people in the world even today. No state equals no liberty.
DSW
Distortion of the market is pretty unavoidable in a purely market oriented economy, indeed, competition sometimes only occurs with State intervention (look at the effects of deruglation on media ownership). In some areas (like health care insurance administration) the state is more efficient. The model of capitalist as information processor makes sense only up to the point that most of us have finite capacities for acquiring and using information (a circumstnace that has won the Nobel in econ for a couple of my fellow psychologists). An investor w/o access to “insider” info may try to be “rational” and utilitarian in their decision making, but will lose out because of the information they can acquire. A young person may choose not to buy health insurance based on rational assumptions that are erroneous in their case (i.e., young adults don’t get serious illnesses)…the list goes on. Plus, frankly, amny are not interested in having to continuously shop for things. The libertarian crowd and other pure market types talk an attractive theory, but a variety of social and psychological realities present insurmountable barriers to markets providing a standard of living proportional to the effort that individuals might make.
Sorry to be stuffy, but I think it’s not so cool to post job negotiation stuff on websites. It could be very awkward. Think BU?
It’s not a secret that we’ve made him an offer. I don’t think you’ll see me posting a blow-by-blow account of the negotiation process here, which of course I know nothing about anyway.
But I think the point holds that, from first principles, you can know that you cannot blend socialism with capitalism.
Yes, Andy, but the point of Lane’s book is that, according to comparative empirical data, balancing these forces in practice turns out to be well within the capabilities of many countries.
But Kieran, what we see around the world in the western social democratic countries, is a slide, in the form of the EU, towards a larger state with an increasing amount of control, and in the US, to a growing state with an increasing amount of control.
These processes are not instantaneous, nor even quick, as people like me are constantly fighting it and resisting it, and occasionally (eg: Thatcher or Reagan), we even reverse it, SLIGHTLY. Usually to howls of protest from the left.
But it is a ratchet which generally keeps tightening. The US, for instance, was essentially an anarcho-capitalist state 230 years ago, especially on any part of its western frontier. But because the classical liberals who created it thought they could protect this with a flimsy constitution, 230 years later, in some ways the US is even more socialist than Europe.
I’m currently in Boston, and heavy government presence is around me virtually everywhere I look. Then we have the Republican Party spending more than any government has ever spent before, and borrowing more than ever before.
And this process of ratcheting statism will continue to increase, regulation by regulation, until totalitarianism is complete. It may take 50 years, it may take a hundred, it may take ten.
But it is happening, and it is not a balancing process. It is a long slow slide, with the occasional Thatcherite bump.
Fortunately, this ratchet is not inevitable, as the Marxist historicists would have us believe. And it CAN be reversed, especially once the acceptance of political control of society disappears (as witnessed by decling voter rolls).
But it isn’t going to be easy. There are just so many vested interests in the way, and so many people around who like telling other people what to do, and living off other people’s taxes.
But I think we can see with the gathering failure of Third Way politics, and other triangulationist strategies, that balancing egalitarianism and capitalism, for a stable long term, is impossible. Even if it was desirable.
Though I’m sure we’ll have to agree to disagree about that! :-)
Andy,
“But Kieran, what we see around the world in the western social democratic countries, is a slide, in the form of the EU, towards a larger state with an increasing amount of control, and in the US, to a growing state with an increasing amount of control.”
That you get from the growth of the EU to the inevitable total domination of the state is laughable. Firstly, the EU is voluntary and any member state can just leave. People join it when it’s in their interests. If it wasn’t they would just leave. Secondly, the notion that the EU represents greater constraints on the people is wrong. The constraints come from a different place but they are no greater. Thirdly, if the EU were to harmonise tax, which seems to be something you’re concerned about, it would do so at a lower level than the Nordic countries, which are the best examples of social democracies. It’s instructive to note that two of the three EU countries who have opted out of the Euro are Sweden and Denmark. These nations are sceptical of the EU precisely because they think it will erode their welfare state not visa-versa.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review