Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A New York Times Attack On Laissez-faire

Rate this topic


HaloNoble6

Recommended Posts

I tend to keep track of the Times opinion-editorials simply because they, more than any other media group, tend to set the terms of the intellectual discourse in the country.

In a recent opinion piece, Paul Krugman attacks laissez-faire capitalism. Here are the relevant lines:

...the attempt to turn Iraq into a laissez-faire showpiece was, in its own way, as much an in-your-face rejection of world opinion as the decision to go to war. Dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets have been losing ground around the world.

Latin Americans are the most disillusioned. Through much of the 1990's, they bought into the "Washington consensus" - which we should note came from Clinton administration officials as well as from Wall Street economists and conservative think tanks - which said that privatization, deregulation and free trade would lead to economic takeoff. Instead, growth remained sluggish, inequality increased, and the region was struck by a series of economic crises.

As an exercise in philosophic detection, I ask the following: what are all the wrong elements in the above passage, i.e. what's wrong with his argument, what is wrong with his premises, what bad concepts is he using, etc.? Furthermore, what would be an appropriate and concise response to his piece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... what's wrong with his argument, ... his premises, what bad concepts is he using, etc.? 

As an Objectivist of many years, I've seen many examples where people blamed free-markets for problems. (E.g. "Californian electricity crisis"). Further analysis showed that the markets were not free.

So, I would start with an assumption that Latin American markets were never free enough; that the term "free-market" is misapplied. What's the technical term? Stolen concept?

Also, knowing Krugman (not sure if you are aware of the site called "Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid", which is dedicated to rebutting Krugman), I suspect that he is not reporting the outcomes correctly either. So, I would question his view of the outcomes. Are the Latin American countries really worse off? Are the people there really disillusioned?

I would research this further by taking 3 or 4 Latin American countries that experimented with "free markets" with differing outcomes. I would try to figure out in what ways the more successful countries did things right.

Other than the specific point about Latin American economies, Krugman also spews the standard multi-cultural line. He implies that free markets might be fine for the west, but will not work for others: they need a poliitcal and economic system more in tune with their culture, etc. etc.. The truth is that Krugman's other writing indicates he does not really think free markets are right for the US either. So, while this snippet says "free markets do not work for everybody", his broader corpus says "free markets do not work".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is infuriating. Paul Krugman hates laissez-faire and wants to equate it with anarchy. He wants to say "Hey, people dying in the streets, no human compassion, Laissez Nous Faire, this is what you wanted!" A truly laissez faire capitalist economy requires a government that will be able to set coherent policies of rights protection which are the earsplitting law of the land. Cooldige going after Capone and that sort of thing. In other words, capitalists would kill Muqtada Al Sadr.

I'm not especially knowledgeable on L.Am., but I suspect this another hide the pea game. I doubt those L.Am governments were really laissez faire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point of analyzing and responding to nonsense. Nobody takes this stuff serious anymore. Way more people will watch Fox News than will read a stupid leftist newspaper. This isn't back years ago when Miss Rand was writing and people in general would read articles like that and her responses were appropriate. In this day and age virtually anyone who would read an article like that would simply think that the guy who wrote is an idiot (which he is), decide to not read the NYT (which I don't) and flip on Fox News (which is what is happening) to get an unbiased report. Ignore it in other words, never give pure nonsense the unneeded honor of a response.

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the paper's opinion pieces are still influential enough to, for example, force a prominent Democratic Senator to write in a letter to the editor (as Senator Joe Lieberman recently wrote to rebuff Krugman himself, actually). And, since FNC is mentioned above, notice that it is still influential enough to make "the most powerful show in cable news" pay attention quite frequently.

Either way, I don't think there is any scientific polling that indicates that the opinion print media produced by the Times is less influential in driving the country's intellectual discourse than, say, O'Reilly.

One other point, it's not exactly accurate to say that an opinion piece by the Times would make one switch to FNC to watch the straight up news reporting, which I agree tends to be more objective than the straight up reporting of the Times. That is, I think it'd be accurate to say "nobody cares about the Times opinion editorials, everyone watches O'Reilly for opinion anyway." I agree that people are less and less getting their news reporting from the Times, but as I said in my first post, I think the times still has a lot of power in terms of setting the terms of the intellectual discourse in the country, as can be deduced from the fact that even O'Reilly pays frequent attention to it. And even if this was not coming from an influential opinion source, I think this is a fruitful exercise in practicing philosophical detection.

Final point, fighting stupidity that comes out of a clearly popular media outfit, that clearly shapes (to an extent) the intellectual discourse in this country, is not a waste of time, it is an act to defend the values we hold dear. If, as was said implied above, "everybody's switching to FNC," why would anyone ever write letters to the editor to anyone except FNC, or editorials at all? Does that mean Dr. Binswanger wastes his time by writing opinion pieces to the Louisville Courier-Journal, for example?

One of the many goals of being a new intellectual is to get your voice out there, to fight madness and stupidity with every tool you've got. I try to write letters to the editor to as many papers as I have the time to read. Also, I often write to O'Reilly and Cavuto (one of which got read on his show a few weeks ago). Refuting this kind of stupidity cleanly and thoroughly on paper is an excellent exercise, in my opinion; one we should all practice.

[edit: added strike through]

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but why should we respond to them? What I mean is instead of analyzing and responding to others nonsense, simply ignore it, and write your own Op-Ed that promotes your values without acknowledging false ideas. When you analyze and respond to them even in critizism you are implicitly sanctioning their very existence. And yes I did over-exaturate(sp?) when I said everyone was switching of course. What I mean is the nation in general is moving away from the left and ignoring it at a ever increasing pace. Our job as the new intellectuals is to fill in the resulting vacuum with correct ideas.

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYT is definitely influential. It is read by New Yorkers who include a large number of people of power. On the other coast, we have "The LA Times". As for Fox and O'Reilly ... that deserves a separate thread. Suffice it to say that they are not our friends.

Apart from the idea of a response, Felipe also asked for philosophic detection. I want to add a twist.

I was just watching TV, and a Christian senator was decrying the removal of the Florida lady's feeding tube saying that it is a shame to let someone starve to death in America. When I heard this I thought of the similarity between this and Paul Krugman's little snippet.

Can anyone find the similarity?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone find the similarity?

Since nobody tried to guess, let me say the similarity I see.

In Latin America, the government set up a situation which appeared to be better than bad (more free market). In the US the government has set up a situation that is better than bad (allowing feeding tubes to be removed).

In Latin America, they did not do what was really required (real free markets). In the US, they did not do what was really required (allowing the administration of something that could kill a person quickly and painlessly).

Now, the powers that be blame the good for what has been caused by their own evil rules that pretend to be "slightly good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman attacks laissez-faire capitalism.  Here are the relevant lines:

What is a "laissez-faire showpiece"..?

Assuming that the above phrase is a good thing, why would anyone (country) be

afraid to do an "in-your-face rejection" of someone else's opinion, if they thought

that opinion was in error..?

Why would doing what you feel is right (as a country) after eliminating the "bad

guys" be an afront to anyone else ("world opinion")..?

What makes "world opinion" automatically correct..?

Anyone who holds that free markets are superior don't do so for dogmatic reasons.

No one who holds dogmatic views (about anything) truly understand what free

markets are, and are therefore not capable of judging them.

Which "Latin Americans" are he refering to..?

What is this "Washington Consensus" thing...?

What is "econmic takeoff"..?

"Growth remained sluggish", means there was growth. What is an adequate

increase for this to be a positive thing?

"Inequality increased"..!? What does that mean..?

What were these economic crises, and how do they relate to the actual situations

taken into consideration in regards to so-called "free market" operations?

He's conflating selected items of meaninglessness into a whole that has no REAL

purpose but to trick his audience into believing that this "laissez-faire" idea and

that free markets are not only bad things for being ineffective, but bad things

simply because they "insult world opinion".

As if "world opinion" is somehow magically "correct".

-Iakeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good response, Iakeo, you did a great job of showing how little sense the article makes.

"Inequality increased"..!? What does that mean..?

It usually means that the people who had already been rich gained wealth at a faster rate than the people who had not been that wealthy. As in: Jack Rich had a thousand bucks and now he has five thousand, while Johnny Poor had $100 and now he has $300. Leftists HATE to see this happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I tend to keep track of the Times opinion-editorials simply because they, more than any other media group, tend to set the terms of the intellectual discourse in the country. 

In a recent opinion piece, Paul Krugman attacks laissez-faire capitalism.  Here are the relevant lines:

As an exercise in philosophic detection, I ask the following: what are all the wrong elements in the above passage, i.e. what's wrong with his argument, what is wrong with his premises, what bad concepts is he using, etc.?  Furthermore, what would be an appropriate and concise response to his piece?

There is a common denominator in all of the New York Times editorials regarding economics.

That common denominator is that the government needs to exercise some control in the economy.

The New York Times is one of the biggest advocates of mixed economy there is. If one were to examine each aspect of the mixed economy, one woud find staunch advocacy in each and every aspect by the New York Times' editors.

Tell me where you'd like me to start!

Social Security? They advocate it, attacking Bush's plans to reform it.

Protectionism?

And on and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only wish it were true that the U.S. was attempting to make Iraq a laissez faire showpiece. But look at the provisional Iraqi constitution:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.  The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only wish it were true that the U.S. was attempting to make Iraq a laissez faire showpiece.  But look at the provisional Iraqi constitution:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

Well POO..!!

Why don't "constitution writers" simply copy constitutions that work (or should

work if followed), such as the US constitution..?

Oh,.. they "have to be unique creations of the indigenous peoples" to be valid,

according to "world opinion".

Silly me,.. how "imperialistic" of me to consider using "best practices" as a base

for new creation..!

Pardon my extreme "self-righteousness". May world opinion bitch and yell at me

interminably for my arrogance.

Mea culpa...

-Iakeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the writers of Iraq's provisional constitution decided to be honest. Instead of having a sham constitution that is routinely ignored by the government, they decided to go ahead and authorize the state to engage in socialism. That way there is no disconnect between theory and practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 14. The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.  The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people
Article 13,G. Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.

That is all I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...