Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Greg Mankiw’s libertarian quasi philosophy

My comment there:

It boils down to asymmetric power in a class-based society, since the ruling elite determine the legal and other institutional arrangement that underlie markets. The chief flaw of conventional economics is failure to look at political science and sociology, which explain the issues clearly and show the reasons for conventional economics being a waste of time in that the models described ideal systems that don't actually exist and cannot actually exist in a modern society. Of course, heterodox economists do too because they get out while conventional economists seldom bother to look out the window.

This is revealed by the basic neoliberal and Libertarian utopian premise that everything would be fine if there were no government intrusion in markets. This is really the assertion that everything would be fine if there were no institutional arrangements at all other than a general agreement not to aggress. Remarkable that they cannot see that this is utopian idealism that makes no practical sense in the contemporary world.

The basic difference between neoliberalism and Libertarianism is that Libertarianism is actually utopian, where as neoliberalism is based on the ruling elite controlling the process and pretending "freedom and democracy," when the reality is oligarchic plutonomy, as the Citigroup plutonomy report acknowledged.

Until conventional economics takes cognizance of poli sci and sociology, not to mention complexity, conventional economists will have their heads either in the clouds or buried in the sand on which they stand. There is no foundation there in the real.

The bottom line is power and who holds it. Economically, power enables the extraction of economic rents that are the basis of wealth and influence. Power is class-based. Of course, flaks for the ruling class will never admit this and demonize it as "Marxism" and "communism." Other conventional economists go along to get along even though they must realize the truth of the matter unless they are incredibly stupid.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Greg Mankiw’s libertarian quasi philosophyLars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

3 comments:

Malmo's Ghost said...

"The bottom line is power and who holds it".

Exactly.

I might not be in agreement with conservatives who beckon from a perspective influenced by Burke, but they, at least to a much greater degree, acknowledge class and or power dynamics explicitly, and clearly both maintain government is essential.

Bill Buckley could debate Michael Harrington or JK Galbraith on the role of government, with both poles allowing that government is axiomatic to civilization--and that it's only the degree/parameters in which government operates which is at issue and not the libertarian notion that government is at all times vile and should be abolished.

In the libertarian utopia, power dynamics still exist. Hierarchy hasn't been abolished. In other words it's simply government by another name. Government, however, of the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful and by the rich and powerful. Even Buckley, rich himself, wanted nothing to do with this Randian, totalitarianism by the rich and powerful, nightmare of a world.



Kristjan said...

Libertarians are generally helping neoliberal cause. They dream away all reality and apply rules of utopia to any question.

Peter Pan said...

Libertarians have become "useful" anarchists.