Signing off the computer for the evening, I just ran across this WaPo piece about Tea Party and other right-wing opposition to reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This is a Chamber of Commerce vs. Club for Growth fight, to name two groups on opposite sides. Moreover, the new House majority leader, McCarthy, has announced he is opposed. Another Republican congressman, according to the piece, recently gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he said the party had to come down firmly on the side of "free enterprise" (as opposed to "mercantilism" or "industrial policy"). Does that mean he opposes all government subsidies to business? All provisions of the tax code tilted in a pro-business direction? There are probably various angles from which one could gloss all this, but I'll let readers provide their own. Btw, the phrase in this post's title that's in quotes is taken from the article.
Added later: If you want to oppose 'corporate welfare', fine. But wrapping oneself in the rhetoric of a pure laissez-faire, free-market system is just political flummery, because there is no such thing. Modern economic systems require some degree of state involvement, and businesses and the state have been intertwined forever, going back at least to the 'long 16th century'. I view these points as being obvious, but sometimes saying the obvious can't hurt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
LFC
This division has been around a lot longer that the article suggests.
Adam Smith might be stretching it a bit. In the "Wealth of Nations" he proposes a "laissz-faire" approach to governing the economy as opposed to mercantilist approach which the owners of enterprises sought monopoly and government protection of the monopoly. (I know, grossly simplified.)
A new twist is the "Reagan Democrats" (the populists) and their successors who came from the Democratic Party (or as they would say: they did not leave the Democratic party it left them) who have positions more like the workers of the old trade union left. Thus immigration and import export bank issues. They tend, but not always, to line up with the "laissz-faire" side, they never did like corporate bosses.
A recent example is former Governor Sarah Palin, who put the screws on the oil industries' attempt to lock up Alaska's oil production. She has a lower middle cass backround "populist" and a strong commitment to "laissez faire" economics. I wonder how much the attacks on her are supported by oil and other big industry financing even if the person delivering attack is sincere progressive.
The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is another example. Ever since President Reagan when ever an appointemt was made the lobbying has been loud for the appointment of a "big business" conservative or a "laissz-faire" conservative, the balance going to the later.
While it is often an unhappy marriage the big business conservatives can make alliance with progressive attempts to set up lare programs and new regulations which, even if unwanted, they see as a way to create/enforce a monpoly in there interest. The "laissz-faire" conservatives tend to line up with the civil rights progressives, as individual rights are necessary for a "laissz-faire" economy.
These are of course trends with many in the middle or shifting by issue.
Hank,
I think a laissez-faire, perfect-competition, no oligopolies, no govt intervention economy is an 'ideal type' that has never been realized in practice. What one is confronted with now is a spectrum/continuum and a mass of different specific policies. So when Cong. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) gives a speech at Heritage calling for a 'laissez-faire' economy I think, even w/o having read the speech, there is an element of weirdness or b.s. b/c an actual laissez-faire economy is not a realistic proposition in the context of 'advanced' capitalism. That said, there are policies that can promote or hinder competition and there are degrees of govt intervention or subsidy to business, I concede that. But wd Hensarling oppose all subsidies to big Texas farmers or oilmen? I wonder.
(Above written in haste as I don't have much time today. I was also going to put up a brief Bangladesh-related post but didn't, for time reasons.)
p.s. see update to the post.
LFC
Good update.
Of course it is spectrum of opinion. Very few would deny the need for some governmental role. But the logic of laisez faire can be used to support the argument that there is so much it is counter productive. Which seems to be the usual case even if the rhetoric is little hyperbolic.
LFC
Good update.
Of course it is spectrum of opinion. Very few would deny the need for some governmental role. But the logic of laisez faire can be used to support the argument that there is so much it is counter productive. Which seems to be the usual case even if the rhetoric is little hyperbolic.
the argument that there is so much it is counter productive
I suppose that would be at least a non-nutty argument, even if I didn't agree w it. My speculation however is that some on the laissez-faire side have read A. Rand or whoever and really believe that *no* or virtually no govt involvement is possible. (I prob. need to read C.Robin's essay on Rand in The Reactionary Mind, since I bothered to buy the bk. I've read some of the pieces in it, not all. Too much to do now rt now however. Which is also why I'm signing off the current CT thread.)
Well, I haven't quite signed off the CT thread. (Sigh.)
Post a Comment