Wealth and Health of Nations [resource]: An infographic from Gapminder that charts the life expectancy and income per person since 1800 across the globe
As Free and as Just as Possible [interview]: Jeffrey Reiman talks about being influenced by Karl Marx, and how that man's theories fit into the modern world
Defining Social Justice [article]: Michael Novak on the origins of the phrase "social justice" and its role in government and society
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth [essay]: The classic Ludwig von Mises piece on why command economies fail
Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis [essay]: Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the differences, and interesting overlaps, between two fields of thought normally considered opposites
A Marxian Case for Capitalism
STEVEN HORWITZ: I’m curious, Jeff: So how, in your idealized world what would that role of the market be? And, how do you see those limits of inequality? Where, what would you want to do about it? And how would you know that inequality was too great? I mean, where, I mean, you’ve talked about how, you have this kind of libertarianism in that it’s not inequality per se. So I’m just curious, where are the problems you see in markets? And where are those limits?
JEFFREY REIMAN: Well, first of all let me say, I am a believer in capitalism. I am a believer in the free market. I have recently written a book, which is, I’m sure you’ll love this, A Marxian Defense of Capitalism. You think that’s logically impossible, right?
So, you know, I believe in, I believe that the main contribution that comes from the market, and this is a moral thing, is dramatically increasing the standard, the material standard of living of people. I think this has been going on now for a long time. I think it’s going on globally now because of the spread of capitalist reforms. It’s going on constantly in America, even in the face of inequality. I agree that the poor are better off now materially than they were 20 years ago, then 40 years ago.
Here’s one statistic which I just really love. In 2009, 82 percent of Americans below the poverty line had air conditioning. Think about that. Imagine what they had 20 years ago or 40 years ago. So that’s a way in which capitalism is working, but I mean that’s very general. That is across the board. It doesn’t quite get to individuals like the kid in that movie.
There I think that there are questions about discrimination, about poor education, and related ideas like that, which, I don’t think you can just exclude the role of government there somehow because—dogmatically. Maybe government can be replaced; maybe not.
I think that we’ve had a welfare system which treats people as the objects of charity, has treated them in a very condescending way and that contributes to dependence. I’m all for changing that. But I’m not worried about the dignity of charitable givers. I’m worried about the recipients who think, only because of the kindness of these more successful people do I get it. It’s not because I deserve it, that the society owes me some kind of fair share.
BRANDON TURNER: Jeff, I want to give Steve a chance to respond real quick and then wrap up.
HORWITZ: Real quick, I think the only comment I’d make there is the assertion that government isn’t the solution to these problems or perhaps isn’t necessary, for me, is not a dogmatic assertion, it’s an empirical question. Has government worked at these things? Can it work at these things? That’s the question.
REIMAN: And I think it’s got a more mixed answer: it’s worked some and failed some. So let's make it
7 Comments
Lee Jamison
The principle question here is “How do we express collectively a desire that people do not individually suffer unjustly?” When I examine this question the key points are obviously the notions of individual and collective interests and the notion “justice”.
What we are REALLY asking is “How can I conform collective action to my individual ideas of justice?” or “How can I make society do what I want?” If we really want to understand this issue we really need to focus on the underlying assumptions inherent in these questions.
*Does not the idea of steering collective action require an assumption that “my” values are superior to values I perceive to prevail collectively?
*Must “collective” action inherently preclude the expression of other value sets?
*Is it possible that the expression of many value sets provides resources which would be precluded by the imposition of few value sets?
* Are compromises possible between the expression of one global value set and the expression of an infinite diffusion of value sets?
Alex Moscoso
Too short of a video, not much detail. However, I would like to mention that even if there was less government intervening in trying to "solve" poverty, it wouldn’t happen politically in an abrupt manner. Therefore a compromise needs to take its place. I would suggest Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax.
Chocolate Thunder
I’m really curious as to how one can have a "Marxian Case for Capitalism," as the Marxian definition of capitalism is one where the economic system is organized for the benefit of the capitalists, where large corporations are given benefits by the state. Thus, a Marxian definition of capitalism =/= free markets.
GreedyCapitalistPig
Great example of answering the question without answering the question. I notice that anytime you ask a question with a very obvious answer, the way to dodge the questions is to say "Well, that’s really too complex for us me to explain right now." How do you nail Socialist/Marxists to the wall on topics like these?
ndvo
It doesn’t matter if we call it "right" or "entitlement", if someone gives money to another person in exchange of nothing, it is charity. It is not more dignifying to lie saying: "you deserve it because you were born".
Someone who depends on charity should not be ashamed for this unless it is due to a mistake of his. If someone is ashamed, the solution is not to lie, it is to fix whatever the situation is…
It is a very dangerous thing to call charity something evil because it says to the receiver that he is dependent, while calling government charity something good because it lies to the receiver saying he is entitled. Government charity is simply charity with other people’s money that removes from society the virtues of both givers and receivers: givers are no longer willing and receivers are no longer humble.
Hunter Markson
While I am a devout believer in the free enterprise system, I believe that we should listen to the concerns of the left and try to word our arguments to show how market capitalism helps solve the problems they bring up
Jake Andrews
There would be value in this as the liberal view of economics is very static, and by looking at Elizabeth warren, you can tell they are frustrated, though not by us per se, but rather their lack of economics knowledge