May 29, 2024
Wednesday Open Comments
Econ prof Noah Smith published a post that lines up with my beliefs. I don’t tend to agree with Smith in general, since I don’t share his politics and political-economic preferences. But he sees the same fundamental blindspot for libertarian-inclined economists and thinkers that I do.
The fundamental weakness for libertarian and free-trade economic thinking is that it simply ignores human priorities at the society level. Libertarian thought treats free trade as so self-evidently superior to all other considerations as to dismiss any concerns beyond the most efficient delivery of goods and services. The case for free trade is very strong, while not being especially intuitive. Once you’ve seen its benefits in terms of costs and efficiencies, it is difficult to dispute.
As Smith points out, national security and national defense still matter—in particular in a world where our western democratic systems are under threat from the global advance of revisionist authoritarian powers.
He frames the other side as “British economists,” referring to British business and economics publications like The Economist or FT. But what he describes is the broader libertarian view.
If a hostile society is intent on using free trade for the purpose of industrial and military domination over your society, clearly free trade itself cannot be the sole deciding factor. Free trade is beneficial for everyone, certainly, but there are greater and more important considerations for societies. Rational market efficiency does not override the consideration of national survival.
Good morning. I think free trade gets a bad rap in this formulation. Irrespective of the intentions of, say, China regarding trade, if the U.S. didn't squash some of its manufacturing through zoning, labor market restrictions, requirements that chip factories provide free child care, etc., it would be a different competitive marketplace.
In other news, it looks like I can't vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate:
From the Dispatch Politics column: "During his victory speech on Sunday night, [nominee Chase] Oliver took pains to distinguish himself from Trump, Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who also appeared at the convention, by aligning himself with the “young people on college campuses across the country who are outraged by the genocide in Gaza.”
“RFK won’t, Joe Biden won’t, Donald Trump won’t,” Oliver continued, “but I’m saying right now: End the genocide, ceasefire now, and support peace around the world. No more proxy wars!” When a delegate in the crowd yelled, “Free the hostages!” Oliver said, almost as an afterthought, “Absolutely, free the hostages, too.”
Earlier this month, Oliver told The Dispatch that Israel’s response to October 7 was as “equally terrible” as Hamas’ terror attack. When pressed on the comment, Oliver apologized and said the actions were “not equal,” but continued to draw some equivalence between Israel’s effort to eliminate the threat of Hamas and Hamas’ deliberate massacre of civilians: “What I mean to say is that the [Israeli] response … is not morally defensible, just as obviously what Hamas did is not morally defensible.”
I guess I have to add a third criterion: Not old, not crazy, and not ignorantly anti-Israel.