flinthills

Marxism Still a Continuing Argument?!

In the "it would be funny if it weren't so sad" category, consider this news item from Britain's Sunday Times:

"His influence may have waned on the global political stage, but Karl Marx seems certain to be voted the world’s greatest philosopher in a new poll.

[...] 

Wheen said: 'He’s far more wide-ranging than the others on the list. He was not just a philosopher but was also very much involved in politics, economics and history. Marxism is also still a continuing argument, so that helps to give him credibility and relevance.' "

[...]

'Actually, Marx himself was rather buried, as it were, by communist leaders such as Stalin and Kim Il-sung during much of the 20th century,” said Wheen. “It is they who discredited communism, but Marx’s own ideas are still very viable and influential' "

Uh huh... Spend a day reading Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society," ... have a conversation with Williams, Roberts, Boudreaux, Sowell, ... there's a lot more.  They'll quickly disabuse you of any pretense to the notion of the communist vision being a possibility in the real world.

Silly Quote of the Week

In a stunning display of ignorance regarding the non-normative laws of economics (as in if you don't believe in gravity, step off a cliff): Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, joining forces with Democrat Sen. Clinton to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs, says:

"Manufacturing jobs built our great Middle Class and allowed millions of families to live the American dream and create a better life for the children.  That bedrock strength is being eroded [...] we can no longer watch good jobs disappear."

As Joseph Schumpeter (no great friend of free markets) pointed out a long time ago, one cannot escape the gales of creative destruction.   Yes, manufacturing jobs are disappearing, and yes, there is real hardship and pain for some of those who are caught in that cycle.  But that's reality.  Pain and hardship exists and we can use sound public policy to help those who are suffering (like, promoting awareness and providing incentives for voluntary organizations to step in and help out with private funds). 

There's also, on the net balance, more jobs created in this country than are destroyed, as the accompanying chart demonstrates using recent BLS data. 

Here's a thought experiment: you have a nephew who's getting to be 14 or 15 years old and he is trying to figure out what he wants to do with his life -- should he go to college?  What career might he be curious about?  He asks you for advice. Just out of curiosity... would steer him towards manufacturing!!??  An industry that has been in decline since the 1950's??

This kind of thinking leads to subsistence living -- because using it we'd never have developed manufacturing in the first place -- we'd never have been let off of the farm.  We'd still be riding horse-and-buggies. 

I'm sure there are some neo-luddites out there who shiver with delight at the idea.  I'm not one of 'em.  I like my job, my varied career, the myriad of choices that assault me in a grocery store, the challenge of choosing just what kind of car I want to buy next, the ability to get my Starbucks each morning for $1.83 (grande coffee of the day w/ one shot of espresso) no matter where I am in the world (which I like as well). 

Without creative destruction and the free market mechanism (as well as liberty, private property, and rule of law), most of us would not exist today because Malthusian economics would rule the day -- eventually, our population with surpass the earths ability to sustain it -- we'd be more like a rabbit warren than a human civilization.  Rabbits are cute, but  I prefer civilization.

Something to be said for political gridlock...

Saw this article from Forbes (free subscription required) titled, "Stadium Loss is Win-Win." 

"The covered stadium was to have been built on a 30-acre site atop a rail yard owned by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority. But if the land could be freed for other purposes, the question was why the stadium was the best use.

[...] What's never explained is why New York needs the city to build on the site. In recent years, developers have grabbed every available site to build. If the rail yards were made available for other uses, developers would build there, too. Not a stadium, but someone would build something." 

I hope a lot of Wichitans read Forbes...