“The Man is Hiding the Stash” Fallacy

At Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez says of the Marxist Piven’s philosophy:

The problem with Piven’s theory is that events in Europe have shown those “major economic reforms” to be unsustainable, if not actually ruinous. However, she appears to believe that the European crisis is only apparent, being the result of the Man hiding the Stash. Find that stash and things become sustainable again.

I think this fallacy deserves its own name because I think this is the central economic fallacy of leftists in general. Whether we are talking about unions, public workers, redistributionists, etc., there is always the implicit idea that somewhere there is this big pile of money that the rich business people are hoarding away like a squirrel with its winter store of nuts. Leftists tell everyone that all problems can be solved if we just use the force of the state to threaten the squirrels to give up their nuts.

The problem is that rich people don’t own a lot of nuts, they own nut producing trees, i.e., rich people don’t have a stash of cash, they own assets that can, if managed properly, produce a stream of income. Worse, for the leftists, those assets usually provide jobs for the majority of the population, so you really can’t alter their use too much. If you cut the tree down to get the nuts, what are going to eat next year?

Read more

DoubleQuotes and Questions

[ cross-posted from Zenpundit ]

You know, I really enjoy building my DoubleQuotes. They can be entirely frivolous, as is this one, for instance:

with its touch of gothic — a taste I share with my friend Bryan Alexander.

Or they can work like a Necker cube, offering opposite framings with which to view a single topic — in this case, video games.

Read more

Credentialists Gone Wild

(updated 1/28)

Elizabeth Scalia (aka The Anchoress) cites the case of Pete Hamill–author of over a dozen books, writer of a syndicated newspaper column and of countless essays and articles covering a broad range of subjects–who finally got around to getting a degree from the high school he dropped out of 59 years ago. “It was the last period when you could do that and still have a life,” Hamill told the New York Times.

Scalia:

We live in an era where a well-educated journalist can declare the Constitution to be “over a hundred years old” and therefore difficult to understand, and remain credibly employed; it does seem that credentials matter more than ability. Demonstrating that one is able to conform to curricula currently trumps boldness; seat hours in the auditorium count more than audacity.

I wonder if that’s really good for America, though. To become educated is a marvelous thing; to have the opportunity to study is a privilege too many take for granted. But have we become a society that places too much weight on the attainment of a diploma, which sometimes indicates nothing more than an ability to keep to a schedule and follow a syllabus, and underappreciates the ability to wonder, to strike out on an individual path, and to learn on one’s own?…to paraphrase Gregory of Nyssa, it’s the wondering that begets the knowing.

Read more

There is no excuse for (purportedly) being surprised by this.

Progressives laudably seek to oppose injustice by deploying government power as a countervailing force against the imagined oppressive and exploitative tendencies of market institutions. Yet it seems that time and again market institutions find ways to use the government’s regulatory and insurer-of-last-resort functions as countervailing forces against their competitors and, in the end, against the very public these functions were meant to protect.
 
We are constantly exploited by the tools meant to foil our exploitation. For a progressive to acknowledge as much is tantamount to abandoning progressivism.

The Economist, Democracy in America blog Via Mickey Kaus, via Instapundit.

Kaus’s proposed reforms can’t hurt. But the mindset has to change. Conservatives will have to figure out that being “pro business” and being “pro market” and “pro freedom” will often be in opposition. Big Business wants a regulatory state to insulate it from competition. That is rational self-interest. And it is anti-market.

Corporate capture of state power is the inevitable and (should be) well-known consequence of creating state power in the first place. Edmund Burke and Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson warned about this in the late 1700s, and the liberal thinkers throughout the 19th Century were acutely aware of this problem. (See, e.g., this book) The Founders knew this, and built a central government of limited powers for exactly this reason, with the mercantilist, politically-connected monopolies of Britain very much in mind. In the mid-20th Century, Mancur Olson, James Buchanan and George Stigler, among many others, documented and demonstrated that the regulatory state will be in the hands of the supposedly regulated parties based solely on the incentives and knowledge of all the parties.

Regulatory capture is folk wisdom, not arcane knowledge. It is inevitable.

No one can honestly smack their forehead and say “d’oh!”

There is no excuse for being surprised by this.

UPDATE: Our Nomenklatura, Via Instapundit.