“I have been reading webbed articles by Austan Goolsbee, widely described as Barack Obama’s economic advisor. Most of them are pretty good; he’s obviously a real economist in the Chicago style, someone who sees economics as a powerful and exciting tool for explaining the world. And he generally favors markets, incentives, and the like.”

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/04/pretty-good-economist.html

He’s the basis - along with Lippman, Weber and Hayek - for Jeffrey Friedman’s particular libertarianism, which I tend to pull out of my pocket when conversing (pun) with certain intellectuals who will have none of this ideologically driven libertarian “nonsense”.

The public actually has no ideology whatsoever, apart from certain faint cultural traits and de facto attitudinal dispositions stemming from the institutions they live and work in.

That seems to be the position of Philip Converse.

I bet that corporate executives are much more aware of economic policy issues than the general public. I’m skeptical that a fair comparison can be made between those two groups.

I think it is the greater awareness that leads to more libertarianism views (relative to the general public, of course). If we all shared the same factual beliefs, our values would still result in different policy preferences though.

To me, “fair” seems a rather meaningless word, like “good”.

I don’t think that this dynamic is at odds with the goal of “fair trade”. Fair trade systems often focus on economic structure and agricultural practices (worker-empowerment and ecological maintenance, for example). Both of these should improve the welfare of the workers/communities in various ways (not just wages), and if regular/fair market act in the context of these policies, that’s fine.

On “libertarian CEOs”: I bet that corporate executives are much more aware of economic policy issues than the general public. I’m skeptical that a fair comparison can be made between those two groups.

I’ve heard that by keeping coffee prices, and ultimately farmers’ wages higher than they’d be without the encouragement offered by fair trade folks, they act to bring more coffee growers into the market, dissipating the gains.

I’m increasingly sympathetic to this notion. In the last couple years I’ve started coming over to the Jeffrey Friedman (of Critical Review) perspective, which one could call purely empirical quasi-libertarianism.

Actual public opinion is sorely overlooked by ideologues of all stripes (and I’m one too!). The public actually has no ideology whatsoever, apart from certain faint cultural traits and de facto attitudinal dispositions stemming from the institutions they live and work in.

Regarding Caplan vs. Carson, if Carson believes that the public opinion research is in error because people are ACTUALLY being asked what they think of the “free market” as it exists in a state capitalist system, then his suspicion is correct. But I see no evidence that people are criticizing the PHONY free market, but certain abstract axioms that Carson, myself and most other libertarians would agree are legit.

So Caplan is on point in my opinion, though I come down on Carson’s side on overall prescription and his more illuminating analysis of political economy.

I am sure that there are different types of fair trade–some models better than others. Obviously the term itself connotes a moral critique of what is conventionally understood as the “free market,” –but it more closely approximates my idea of free trade–meaning free individuals/groups trading with one another with each being fully aware of the nature of the transaction and each being able to “walk away” if need be.

Just curious what folks that about that.

More libertarian how? Are they crusading against the regulatory state in general?

Most people don’t crusade at all. I suspect they would approve of scaling back the regulatory state more than a member of the general public. Perhaps a response to an opinion poll is not a good enough falsifiable measure, in which case I’d ask that you suggest something better.

Corporate executives are libertarian in the way that Elliot Spitzer is against prostitution.

Oddly enough, I had just finished reading this post arguing that Elliot Spitzer was acceptably anti-prostitution from a voter’s perspective. Why is prostitution and drug-dealing illegal in the first-place? Because the general public is very, very unlibertarian. I’m not an activist and I hold out no hope for libertarianism’s prospects. I don’t try to not offend the general public by holding them responsible. In as far as I am willing to consider the term “exploited” to be of any use, do I consider them to be exploited by the State and thus victims? Sure, but being a victim doesn’t make one blameless. I’ve given arguments of a Carsonian bent about how actually existing capitalism is different from libertarianism, but that only goes so far when people fundamentally disagree on issues like individual autonomy and the desirability of pareto improvements and harms (I suppose that’s more utilitarian than strictly libertarian, but a lot of unlibertarian things follow from it). Liberals, conservatives and libertarians all like to believe that deep-down people hold their (the ideologues) beliefs and just need the wool pull from over their eyes, but that’s wishful thinking.

I suspect TGGP is alluding to Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter. With all due respect, when I hear that book mentioned I reach for my gun.

I don’t believe that corporate executives are, in fact, more libertarian than the general population. What corporate executives do is TALK more about “free markets” than the general population. And frankly, if the population takes the executives’ talk at face value, they’ve got VERY GOOD REASON to hate what they’ve been told is the “free market.” If the free market meant what those people meant by it, I’d hate it too.

Corporate executives are libertarian in the way that Elliot Spitzer is against prostitution.

All the “free market” talk of corporate executives and neoliberal politicians, and their pet journalists like Tom Friedman, means about as much as Stalin’s allusion to the symbolism of the socialist and workers’ movements of the nineteenth century. What they are is statist thugs who want to enrich themselves, but who can’t get away with just saying “we want to rip you off, so hand it over.” So they misappropriate the rhetoric of genuine libertarianism to create the illusion of some principled basis on which to sell their looting to the public. Their filthy tongues should burn in their mouths every time they use the language of “free markets.”

And by and large, this is exactly what Caplan means by “economic literacy” in making policy: putting policy in the hands of looters who TALK about free markets. The public is “irrational” because they don’t like looting, but most of them lack the conceptual framework for understanding that it’s not really the “free market” they hate. But if they hate what they consider the “free market,” it’s largely the fault of the looters who’ve misappropriated the term.

What people hate, by and large, is unfairness. And people know it when they see it, all the corporate hogs at the welfare trough, even if they don’t know exactly what to call it. They may be thinking largely in terms of the ruling class’s conceptual framework, but they still know something stinks. It’s a bit like the way Huck Finn didn’t know enough to question the slavers’ conceptual framework on “property,” but said “all right, then, I’ll go to hell.”

Brutum Fulmen,

You may be right about the private motivations of some corporate executives. But I would guess that most of them have internalized the standard Tom Friedman concept of “free markets.”

More libertarian how? Are they crusading against the regulatory state in general? Why do companies like Anheuser-Busch donate to the Partnership for a Drug-free America? (Hint: Keeping pot-distribution illegal is a wise decision for their bottom line.) They file amicus briefs supporting affirmative action programs in court, because they can afford legions of lawyers to make themselves look good on paper, while the small-business person can be destroyed by even one discrimination suit.

there is a reason virtually no CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are libertarians.

The general population is quite unlibertarian. How do CEOs compare to them? Judging from what I’ve read from Bryan Caplan, I would guess they are more libertarian on average but quite a bit less than us.

You’ve been convincing me that I’m more left wing than I thought, or rather, you’re reminding me of the path which led me towards libertarianism and helping me think about that even more.

I’m hoping to convince UK liberals of the same sort of thing, although I’m not nearly so eloquent. UK liberals in theory support markets, but are suspicious after Thatcher, who is unfortunately idolised by many libertarians in the UK (or pseudo-libertarians I suppose) and tend to support managed markets (and a particular bug bear of mine right now the ‘informed choice’ that is no choice because the government appointed expert knows best).

On the James Taggarts seeing themselves as John Galt - I can believe that. Atlas Shrugged really made me realise about big business and its collusion with government. Unfortunately many seem to take it to be a simple paean to the businessman.

Your point about Fortune 500 CEOs is a good one. But believe it or not, I saw an article several years ago about Atlas Shrugged reading circles in corporate management–that’s right, those James Taggarts all see themselves as John Galt.

All I can say of them is: pfffft. But in the real world, large corporations do not support decentralized govt. They have legions of CPAs, lawyers and lobbyists to make sure that all the laws and regulations ultimately work to their benefit — and serve as barriers to entry for those who cannot afford said legions of professionals. And, they can pay for loopholes that won’t unduly “burden” them.

Ayn Rand, as you likely know, did not consider herself a libertarian — indeed, she despised libertarians for the thought crime of not buying into her life-encompassing philosophy of Objectivism.

My wages could be doubled, and there’s no way I could handle a three-day stay in the hospital, let alone a truly catastrophic illness or injury without my medical insurance. So is that what you say to all those without insurance? Well, fight for a raise and you can afford to pay your medical bills. ??

Yes, it’s ironic when wages are stagnating or taking a nose-dive that America should be offered healthcare. Greaaaat! Having looked at the website of the National Association of Manufacturer’s, where they have reports from the government as well, I can assure you the (clear thinking) American bourgeoisie want a national healthcare plan.

What you lot should be aiming for, though, is increased wages. Amp up the wages, beat down the taxes. Make your own bloody medical decisions (no pun intended).

Mona,

If we can also get people on the left to decide they’re more pro-market than they thought, we’ve got a basis for common action.

Your point about Fortune 500 CEOs is a good one. But believe it or not, I saw an article several years ago about Atlas Shrugged reading circles in corporate management–that’s right, those James Taggarts all see themselves as John Galt.

Angelica,

I admit to having leaned toward the crackpot position on thimerosal myself, although I’ve mostly been convinced now it was a false alarm.

Democrats would clean up if they’d just start demonizing Republicans in terms of their own “free market” rhetoric and constantly harping on the theme of big business as welfare case. And I think a lot of libertarians are starting to realize that the Democrats couldn’t possibly be any less libertarian on economic issues than the party that *talks* about “free markets” all the time. Stalin talked about workers’ power, too, I think.

On reducing bureaucracy, the most pragmatic approach is (on the libertarian side) probably to remove privilege first and *then* see how much the secondary intervention can be reduced (pretty much the consensus that emerged in the thread on mortgaged-backed securities). On the liberal side, the coplementary position is first to remove the forms of state intervention that create the problems before considering *additional* intervention to correct it. In the case of healthcare, that would mean voiding out drug patents, removing regulatory barriers to cooperative insurance and delivery of service (e.g. “lodge service”), and pruning back at least the most economically restrictive aspects of the licensing system–and then seeing how much of a problem lack of coverage is.

Liberals and libertarians can’t convert each other, but we may be able to agree on setting the priorities for immediate action and leaving aside the more contentious stuff for when we’ve accomplished what we’ve agreed on.

Don’t get me wrong. If progressive goals can be accomplished with a lighter touch involving less bureaucracy, then I am all ears. However, I am a pragmatist and yet to be convinced by by the likes of Goolsbee. I found Obama’s healthcare plan especially wanting. It’s great to say “we’re offering people choice”, but if you are allowing people to opt out, there is the nasty little problem of adverse selection.

As for the negative income tax, it does bear investigation. It cuts away a lot of bureaucracy involve in mean-tested welfare and is less likely to trap people into being dependent on it. I’ve come a long way towards accepting this idea in the form of the earned income tax credit.

I keep trying to tell critics of libertarianism — and I’ve said or written this dozens of times — that there is a reason virtually no CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are libertarians.