Social Democratic Liberalism Came to Serve Corruption

Americans' acceptance of the Keynesian ideology, often called social democracy or post-war liberalism, had its roots in Hamiltonian Federalism. Hamilton, a follower of Hume's economic ideas, had advocated federal expansion of credit and concentration of its availability to business interests. This was to be accomplished by federal assumption of the Revolutionary War debt and establishment of a central bank. Hume had argued that if credit is made available to merchants, then the merchants' smart investment decisions would allocate resources into their most productive uses. Thus, the public might become richer by the artifical creation of money, in Hume's view. Hume assumed that it is a good bet for the public to bear investment risk. But there is certainly risk. Hume believed that the risk would pay off, but this is an apriori argument, not an empirical fact. Moreover, this argument rested on particular facts that were true in the 18th century and ceased to be true by the late nineteenth, in particular merchants' personal assumption of risk.

Hume wrote at a time when corporations did not exist. Corporations did not take their present form until the late nineteenth century, as late as the 1890s. At the time that Hume wrote, merchants who assumed risk did so on their own account, and if they lost money they personally suffered. Thus, there was considerable motivation for rational, profit-maximizing behavior. When central banking was abolished, business needed alternative means to aggregate capital. Corporate organization did so, and it did so by shifting risk away from entrepreneurs and merchants onto investors. This is a more rational method for allocating risk than is central banking because it can reflect personal preferences for risk. Moreover, it permits reflection of a wide range of public preferences. Some people have considerable utility for money in the present because they prefer to consume. Consumers might prefer not to take risks with money but rather to spend it. In contrast, other people have greater utility for money in the future. Such investors can choose to invest more heavily in corporate ventures than a central bank's broad allocation of public resources to specific interests would permit.

Corporate organization might be viewed as an alternative form of capital aggregation to central banking. It is superior because the allocation of risk is explicit. Those who wish to take risks invest in the corporation, while those who do not wish to take risks do not invest. This contrasts with monetary creation by the central bank, which forces all citizens to participate in risky business decisions whether they choose to or not.

But the compounding of the corporate form with central banking might exaggerate risk taking and confound the Humean-Hamiltonian model. Merchants who are not personally at risk may not behave rationally. The result is a potential for corrpution. A corporate president who is granted dollops of credit artificially created by a central bank might be motivated to present false earnings reports, pay himself an exaggerated salary and then resign from the firm before it goes bankrupt, much as the officers of Enron and Bear Stearns did. There is no guarantee of rational behavior by corporate organizations staffed by self interested bureaurcrats. Thus, the subsequent adoption of Hamiltonian Federalism under the Keynesian moniker has gradually led to a crap shoot economy unbridled by rationality and propelled by self-seeking, incompetence and greed.

By 1830 it was evident to most workers that the Central Banking system was not beneficial to them. The Humean and Hamiltonian theory of credit had failed. In particular, banking monopolies led to depreciating currency which in turn led to resentment of the central bank, which President Andrew Jackson abolished in 1832 and 1833. Between 1833 and 1913 there was no central bank, and this was the period of greatest economic creativity in American history. It was also a period of slow business profit, which resulted in repeated complaints about "depressions". Every decade saw increasing real wages and every decade saw a "depression". By the end of the 19th century the average American was much better off, the American economy was the center of world innovation, immigrants flocked here by the millions, but business interests incessantly complained about "depression". Moreover, governmental subsidies to railroads engendered corruption and overexpansion. Post-Civil War monetary inflation facilitated speculation and created income inequality. This occurred at the same time that Jackson's spoils system led to political corruption in the cities.

Many observers felt that rationalization of the state through civil service would improve the economy. The traditional American belief that morality led to economic success was being tested by corruption associated with the railroads and political clubs in the cities. In 1883 Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which created a rudimentary civil service for the federal government. In turn, advocates of moral and limited government, to include the Mugwumps, argued for increased use of civil service, honesty in government, and the gold standard and reduced tariffs. The election of 1884, in which the Mugwumps bolted the Republican Party to support Grover Cleveland, led to Cleveland's election. At the same time, the corporate form of organization facilitated the expansion of industry.

During this period Bismarck in Germany was experimenting with social democracy. Bismarck implemented national health insurance, social security and other social programs. The German historical school of economics argued against the laissez faire economics of Charles Sumner and Adam Smith. Smith, like Hume, argued that there are general laws of economic development. In contrast, the German historical school argued that economic laws are specific to time and place and that generalization is impossible. Moreover, the German historical school assumed that it is possible to rationally guide an economy. This contrasts with Hume's belief that merchants are better equipped to assess investment opportunities than anyone else. It also contrasts with the Whiggish and Jeffersonian belief in countryside entrepreneurs as better equipped to assess investment opportunity than either central planners or elite merchants.

In the late nineteenth century young American academics such as Henry Carter Adams, Richard T. Ely and John R. Commons sought education in the German universities. This was linked to the late nineteenth century Mugwumps' interest in establishing professions. The Mugwumps not only believed in fighting corruption and establishing sound money, but they also had specific professional interests in mind. They wanted to establish standards in academia, law, medicine and other professions. These professional interests became the common thread of modern liberalism. If there is one constant theme from the Mugwumps to todays American Association of University Professors, it is the importance of a college education, professionalism and regulations to establish them. The Mugwumps did not believe in social democracy, but they did believe in rationalization. The German universities were the best in the world, and they thought that if Americans were trained in German universities that they could bring the best methods to bear on American problems. But in social science the German universities were not really so methodologically advanced. The German historical school's emphasis on state-based solutions was a form of romanticism. The Americans who studied in Germany brought some reform ideas to bear on American problems, but combined these with faith in the power the state to solve social problems.

At first the Mugwumps resented the ideas of Richard T. Ely and Henry Carter Adams. As Nancy Cohen points out, Ely, who founded the American Economics Association, was denied tenure and forced to conform to the Mugwumps' expectations. Henry Carter Adams left academia altogether. However, the long term effect was to stimulate support for Progressivism. Ely's student John R. Commons was a central figure in the reform-oriented Wisconsin school, for instance. Progressivism had a number of roots, to include Social Gospel Christianity and Populism, but it was also heavily influenced by Commons's academic theories. Progressivism should not be confused with socialism or social democracy. At times it had elements of these but it included reform ideas of varying kinds.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson had established the Federal Reserve Bank in order to rationalize the credit markets. Wilson was a supporter of the gold standard and had voted for the Gold Democrats in 1896. He did not anticipate a return to Hamiltonian Federalism. Rather, he saw the Fed as a way to rationalize and professionalize financial management. However, by reestablishing a central bank, he reopened the door to Hamiltonian Federalism. Immediately after the Fed was founded, there was a serious inflation which in turn led to a depression. By 1920 the public had grown weary of the disruptions in economic life and elected Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. By 1920, after two decades of Progressivism, there was little memory of the laissez faire ideas of the late nineteenth century. Thus Harding and Coolidge, who succeeded Harding when he died three years into his term, nor Congress, were motivated to repeal the Progressive legislation of Roosevelt and Wilson. Part of the reason was that the more extreme socializing ideas that the Republicans under Roosevelt advocated had not come to pass. Instead, the more conservative approach of William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson had led to limited judicial enforcement of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the Hepburn Act which established railroad rates, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. But these laws had limited effects. On the other hand, they turned out to be a stepping stone to a greater degree of governmental intervention in the economy within 12 years.

The compounding effect of the central bank and the corporate form of organization in generating economic inefficiency and corruption did not begin to be felt for a number of decades. This was accomplished by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the early 1930s. First, FDR abolished the gold standard in 1932. Second, he used the pretext of social democracy to strengthen the federal government, which in turn led to increased availability of credit. This was done through the expansion of the military along with the expansion of the welfare state. Government contracts became available as did increased credit. The stock market began to increase from 1937 onward, and after World War II it began an ascent from which it has never returned. In contrast, the financial markets did not increase from the 1880s until the 1930s. In effect, Roosevelt implemented the Hamiltonian system in full force, but he did so with a cloak. The cloak was that of social democracy. American politics became a debate between two statist visions, both derivative of Progressivism and Federalism. The Republican vision was one of state intervention on behalf of business and opposition to social democracy. The Democratic vision was one of state intervention to regulate business in the name of social democracy but to subsidize business through credit expansion just as Hamilton had suggested in the 1780s. Thus, modern American politics deteriorated into a debate between two Hamiltonian visions, both of which aimed to subsidize inefficient corporations at the expense of a bewildered public.

A Sociopathic Obama is a Greater Risk Than an Angry McCain

I was recently speaking with one of the Democratic Party's unwashed who offered the following arguments in favor of Barack Obama for President:

1. John McCain has the wrong personality
2. John McCain is too old

Arguments about media figures' personalities are precarious. In public affairs, deception is the rule, not the exception. One cannot know the true personality of a salesman or a corporate official, much less so a politician whose mien is publicly available through television, Internet and other electronic media. As difficult as it is for many to discern the intent of a confidence man, how much more difficult it is to discern the underlying personality or motives of a politician whom we see only through the thoroughly biased lenses of television news and the mainstream media. Hence, arguments about McCain's anger or Obama's charming personality are misguided. Many sociopaths have charming personalities, and Obama may be among them.

The question that needs to be asked about the presidential candidates is not whether they seem like agreeable men, but whether they are likely to be sociopaths. A sociopath is a someone without a conscience. Newt Gingrich recently pointed out that Obama is not unlike most politicians. Perhaps politicians are by nature sociopathic, which is part of the reason why government needs to be restrained. Perhaps Newt Gingrich is among them.

John McCain's reputation for anger is evidence that he is honest. As the New York Sun recently pointed out in an editorial, his grasp of economics is poor. But so is Obama's. Moreover, Obama was associated for many years with a church in which he now, when it is convenient, says that he no longer believes. Moreover, Obama claims to be for change, a slogan of past demagogues such as Adolph Hitler ("alles muss ander sein"). Hence, while arguments based on personality are necessarily specious, it would seem that there is a much greater risk of a sociopathic Obama than a sociopathic McCain. Moreover, Obama's association with a variety of fringe elements whom he readily disowns once revealed suggests a lack of character consistent with sociopathy. Anti-social personality disorder is the basis to sociopathy, and Obama seems to have been attracted to the fringe culture of Reverend Pfleger and Bill Ayers.

Mr. Obama claims to favor change, yet he is allied with specific economic interests, specifically Wall Street. In 2008, Goldman Sachs so far has given $2.7 million to Democrats and less than $1 million to Republicans. Goldman Sachs's contributions to Democrats has exceeded those to Republicans every year since 1990. To assuage public concern about excessive Wall Street influence on Obama, America's off-the-charts-insipid media provide testimonies from "principled" Wall Street tycoons like George Soros and Warren Buffett that Obama is for "change". Of course, Messrs. Soros and Buffett do not discuss how Obama's "change" will influence their own economic interests.

In contrast to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley has traditionally given to Republicans, according to Open Secrets.org. However, in 2008 Morgan Stanley has donated $1.4 million to Democrats and only $824.8 thousand to Republicans. As far as the finance, insurance and real estate industry as a whole, open secrets reports that in 2008, for the first time since 1990 when it begins its report, the industry as a whole is favoring the Democrats over the Republicans.

Barack Obama claims to be for change, but the change he advocates will likely serve the interests of George Soros, Warren Buffett, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Thus, we can expect continued loose monetary policy, public subsidization of incompetent and corrupt Wall Street business practices and of course increasing inflation and business regulation that serves Wall Street's economic interests.

Obama is not angry. Sociopaths infrequently express anger because they lack emotional substance. Rather, sociopaths learn to manipulate others' emotions. Thus, Obama publicly asserts that he is for "change" while he quietly accepts donations from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

With respect to McCain's age, this argument evidences the divisive nature of Obama's candidacy. When running against Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign was sexist. Throughout Obama's history, racial and class categories have been objects of manipulation. It is not surprising that age, which is not a material factor, becomes the focal point of Obama's divisive smear campaign. McCain and Obama should be asked to perform exercise jointly. Let us see who has greater stamina, and whether Obama, a smoker, can out-jog McCain.

Publius on Localization of America

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say the federal government agreed to download most of its responsibilities, such as social security, taxation, education (oh, I thought that was a state responsibility), medical care for the elderly, regulation of labor and industry and similar responsibilities onto the states. The states would have the power to reform or discard any or all of the progressive, New Deal and Great Society bureaucracies.

Continuing the thought experiment, under such a localization policy, some states might opt for greater freedom of enterprise and laissez faire. Other states might opt for subsidization of business, a central bank like the Fed, and eminent domain to subsidize real estate developers. Still other states might opt for governmental redistribution of wealth to enable the poor to contribute productively. It is likely that one of these models would be most successful. Would the successful states incur the unsuccessful states' wrath?

In the Federalist Papers number five (by Jay) and six and seven (by Hamilton) Publius, the pseudonym for Jay, Hamilton and Madison, addresses this question. Publius's argument is that decentralization will create animosity among the states or local confederacies of states. In Number 5, Publius (Jay) argues that "they ...would in no other sense be neighbors as they would be borderers." In turn, border conflicts and hatreds leading to war would evolve.

In Number Seven Publius (Hamilton) argues that:

Competition of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself."

States, muses Hamilton, might pass laws that justifiably benefit their own citizens, but in so doing incur the wrath of other states whose citizens are not benefited. An example might be tariffs set by coastal states like New York that expense inland states like Ohio. The result might be civil war.

The Constitution resolved the danger of warfare among the states. A decentralized system that relies on a federal government to resolve conflicts concerning interstate commerce, to set tariffs and conduct foreign policy, would be in keeping with the Constitution and permit improvement and modernization of decision making. A nation united by comparable values need not have but one bureaucracy.

It is likely that the most successful states, which I would guess would be the ones that adopted laissez faire policies, would incur the wrath of other states. But the magnificence of decentralization is that the wrath could be converted into productive action. States could learn from other states through mimesis. Thus, better and more productive methodologies would lead not to hatred and warfare, but rather to the spreading of ideas throughout the republic. Publius Wealth is not the result of resource endowment, but rather of human capital and technology. Greater diversity of experimentation from decentralization will reap benefits that far exceed the costs of multiple bureaucracies.

Federalism and Elitism

The evolution of Hamiltonian Federalism and the American Constitution preceded the centralization of power that occurred in the 20th century. In order to understand why Americans have been ready to accede bureaucratic and money-creating power to the federal government, it is helpful to look at the country's earliest establishment. In that light, progressivism and post-World War II liberalism can be viewed as extensions of the Constitutional convention in 1787. The Constitutional convention reflected the federalist ideas of Hamilton and Madison and emphasized the importance of a central bank, federal support for business, and raising federal taxes. But this federalist impulse was rejected in 1800 by the election of Thomas Jefferson, and the America of the 19th century was not so much a Hamiltonian creation, was not so much federalist, as it was anti-federalist. Jefferson and then Jackson limited the federalist reforms. Thus, the Hamiltonian vision was very much a 20th century vision with respect to government and economics.

Hamilton was a close intellectual follower of the economic ideas of David Hume. Hume advocated a system that anticipated Keynesian monetary policy. Hume believed that a central bank should have the power to create money via credit and that allocation of the credit should be to a business elite. He believed that merchants, by which he meant bankers as well as manufacturers and traders, were more rational than the general public and could determine the best uses for created money. Hume, as well as James Madison, who wrote about the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War, did not believe in that expanding the money supply would be inflationary. Rather, Hume argued that if the productivity of assets in which the business elite invested exceeded their borrowing cost, then expansion of the money supply would not be inflationary and credit expansion would result in an expanding economy. Madison's argument followed Hume's. He argued that the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War occurred because of the public's expecations about the "redeemability" of the money. This is linked to the argument put forward today that inflationary "expectations" cause inflation.

In England in the 1690s, King William III of England was waging war against Louis XIV of France and needed financing. William Paterson and a group of merchants lent 1.2 million pounds to the king, and in exchange received a charter to found the Bank of England, which gave them the power to issue notes. As the British government borrowed money, it grew and established a bureaucracy. In the early 18th century, Sir Robert Walpole developed a system of allocation of patronage to provide incentives for those in power to cooperate with the king. As Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick point out in The Age of Federalism* Walpole's allocation of patronage assured "government of dependable majorities for its policies". English aristocrats in the country opposed the increasing power of the king's court. As Elkins and McKitrick point out, a similar process occurred in America. The Federalists, especially Hamilton, advocated centralized government power, the establishment of a central bank and the use of credit to create a strong economy. The country aristocrats were the Virginians who disliked speculation and finance and did not trust a strong central state.

*Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic 1788-1800.