The claim that “free-market dogma” is the “reigning economic policy” of the United States or any major country seems so absurd, so contrary to big blatant facts (like government spending as a share of GDP, for starters), that I’m dumb-founded. Sure, I could defend this position with demagoguery. But if I wanted to intelligently argue in favor of the claim that neoliberalism actually guides economic policy in any major country, I literally wouldn’t know where to start.
I would suggest starting with the Nirvana fallacy. That is, take the point of view that things could be almost ideal if your preferred policies were in place. Then compare reality to this ideal. When reality falls short, you can infer that your preferred policies are not in place.
This approach works equally well for people who prefer more statist policies and for people who prefer more libertarian policies. For the former, the flawed state of current outcomes are sufficient to demonstrate the futility of free-market dogma, which must be the only thing standing in the way of Nirvana. For the latter, the flawed state of current outcomes are sufficient to demonstrate the futility of government intervention, which must be the only thing standing in the way of Nirvana.
“Must be the only thing” is already too common among libertarians and a point of weakness. It only underscores their failure to succeed – if it was so superior why hasn’t it taken over.
Hhmmm, … kind of.
I mean there’s nothing wrong with wanting world peace say or curing cancer, interplanetary travel. etc – and the fact that they don’t exist doesn’t make it wrong to wish for those things.
Also, I think to most Libertarians and indeed Public Choice economists, there’s really nothing surprising about a lack of Libertarian policy out there.
Libertarianism will come in when Govt. becomes more accountable not when policy is introduced. Or perhaps when govt becomes much more autocratic a la Singapore and doesn’t have to pander to various interests.
There you go – I’ve managed to contradict myself in 1 sentence … I’ll get my coat.
Singapore isn’t libertarian though, as many libertarians tell me all the time. It’s pragmatic and evidence based (for real, not just as propaganda). The evidence sometimes points to libertarian solutions, but not always.
True – fair enough
I’m a longstanding libertarian, but Singapore’s success (thus far) highlights the advantages of an evidence-based mixed-market economy. Even their health care system, despite not being a free market, is amazingly rational in design.
+1 this post
And this is why Kling is one of my favorite economic writers.
I concur.
I think it was Harry Browne who started off one of his books with the chapter, “Utopia Is Not An Option”. I miss that man.
Yes. Our first question should always be — what’s the trade-off?