Tuesday, September 7, 2010
How Embarrassing for the New York Times
The Buffalo News reports that the socialist advocates of welfare for bankers at the New York Times have endorsed a socialist advocate of welfare for bankers, Rick Lazio. How embarrassing for the Times.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Robin Yess to Become Ulster County's GOP Committtee Chair
 |
| Robin Yess, Incoming Chair of the Ulster County Republican Committee |
Maurice Hinchey Is So 14th Century
About two years ago Congressman Maurice Hinchey proposed to affix price controls to gasoline. This recent example of economic illiteracy is hardly surprising. Polls have consistently found that social democrats have virtually no understanding of economics, which is probably why they are social democrats in the first place. Sadly, this level of ignorance is shared by both parties, both of which supported the "bailout".
The popular image of the Middle Ages is that there was little knowledge about markets and that all of society lived happily on a feudal estate where there was no money and no economy in the modern sense. This claim has been turned into Tönnies's sociological constructs of "gemeinschaft" and "geselleschaft". The gemeinschaft economy supposedly characteristic of the Middle Ages was one governed by organic unity, common beliefs and the like, whereas the geselleschaft economy is more or less the market economy.
It turns out that the vision of the Medieval economy on which Tönnies's constructs were based is wrong. Also, it appears that by the 14th century European monarchs already had better economic understanding than today's Democrats. In other words, there was a practical but likely not a theoretical understanding of how markets work. Fourteenth century monks knew more about economics than my economically illiterate congressman, Maurice Hinchey.
Allow me to quote a passage concerning English history from Joel Kaye's essay "Monetary and Market Consciousness in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Europe" which appears on pages 379-80 of Lowry and Gordon's "Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice":
"The clearest witness to this perception among English chroniclers is the author of the Via Edwardi Secundi. Though this chronicle was intended to record the reign of Edward II and his struggles, thoughts about money and prices continually crop up, as if they, in themselves, had historical significance to the writer and his audience.
"In 1315 after the military disaster at Bannockburn and in reaction to a terrible harvest and steeply rising prices, the chronicler records that Parliament, 'looking to the welfare of the state, appointed a remedy for this malady'. Prices on common foodstuffs such as oxen, pigs, sheep and chickens were fixed by law. The next year, 1316, Parliament was forced to reverse itself and cancel the maximum price edicts it had imposed even though the country was still in the grip of a disastrous harvest and rising prices. Here is how the chronicler explains it:
"'The regulations formerly made about food were completely abolished...For as a result of that statute little or nothing was exposed for sale in the markets, whereas formerly there had been an abundant market in goods, though they seemed dear to travelers. But it is better to buy dear than to find in the case of need that there is nothing to be had. For although scarcity of corn raises the price, subsequent plenty will improve the situation.'
"Not only does the author choose to include this particular act of Parliament in his chronicle (when up to this point he mentioned Parliament only briefly and then only when it concerned King Edward), but he sees fit to add his own thoughts on the subject. He notes that goods disappear as the result of price fixing and that high price is preferable to scarcity....
"There is no doubt that a systematic conception of the market as a dynamic, self-regulating system constructed around the instrument of money had long been held among traders and those whose livelihood centered on trade. A glance at the journals of fourteenth-century merchants reveals how sophisticated their understanding of the market had become, and how central this understanding was to every aspect of their activity."
In fact, fourteenth century merchants had greater economic sophistication than social democratic congressmen of 21st century America.
The popular image of the Middle Ages is that there was little knowledge about markets and that all of society lived happily on a feudal estate where there was no money and no economy in the modern sense. This claim has been turned into Tönnies's sociological constructs of "gemeinschaft" and "geselleschaft". The gemeinschaft economy supposedly characteristic of the Middle Ages was one governed by organic unity, common beliefs and the like, whereas the geselleschaft economy is more or less the market economy.
It turns out that the vision of the Medieval economy on which Tönnies's constructs were based is wrong. Also, it appears that by the 14th century European monarchs already had better economic understanding than today's Democrats. In other words, there was a practical but likely not a theoretical understanding of how markets work. Fourteenth century monks knew more about economics than my economically illiterate congressman, Maurice Hinchey.
Allow me to quote a passage concerning English history from Joel Kaye's essay "Monetary and Market Consciousness in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Europe" which appears on pages 379-80 of Lowry and Gordon's "Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice":
"The clearest witness to this perception among English chroniclers is the author of the Via Edwardi Secundi. Though this chronicle was intended to record the reign of Edward II and his struggles, thoughts about money and prices continually crop up, as if they, in themselves, had historical significance to the writer and his audience.
"In 1315 after the military disaster at Bannockburn and in reaction to a terrible harvest and steeply rising prices, the chronicler records that Parliament, 'looking to the welfare of the state, appointed a remedy for this malady'. Prices on common foodstuffs such as oxen, pigs, sheep and chickens were fixed by law. The next year, 1316, Parliament was forced to reverse itself and cancel the maximum price edicts it had imposed even though the country was still in the grip of a disastrous harvest and rising prices. Here is how the chronicler explains it:
"'The regulations formerly made about food were completely abolished...For as a result of that statute little or nothing was exposed for sale in the markets, whereas formerly there had been an abundant market in goods, though they seemed dear to travelers. But it is better to buy dear than to find in the case of need that there is nothing to be had. For although scarcity of corn raises the price, subsequent plenty will improve the situation.'
"Not only does the author choose to include this particular act of Parliament in his chronicle (when up to this point he mentioned Parliament only briefly and then only when it concerned King Edward), but he sees fit to add his own thoughts on the subject. He notes that goods disappear as the result of price fixing and that high price is preferable to scarcity....
"There is no doubt that a systematic conception of the market as a dynamic, self-regulating system constructed around the instrument of money had long been held among traders and those whose livelihood centered on trade. A glance at the journals of fourteenth-century merchants reveals how sophisticated their understanding of the market had become, and how central this understanding was to every aspect of their activity."
In fact, fourteenth century merchants had greater economic sophistication than social democratic congressmen of 21st century America.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Redlich or Republicans for Cuomo (if Paladino Loses)?
If Carl Paladino loses the GOP primary I see three options:
1. Stand down and don't vote for Governor at all
2. Support Warren Redlich, Libertarian Party candidate for governor
3. Join the ranks of Republicans for Cuomo.
Although I do not like Cuomo, in fact I view him as equaling Lazio, I think it is important for the GOP to stop supporting candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Lazio was a paid lobbyist for JP Morgan. But any candidate I support would be thinking about ways of reducing special interests' excessive capture of government. I am puzzled how Lazio could possibly resist providing largess to special interests when he has lobbied for it professionally. As well, the bailout of the banking industry in 2008 was the worst government policy of the past 25 years, yet Lazio was deeply involved in it. Hence, it is difficult to see how he would support policies that are antagonistic to big government given that such expansion has largely been to his own benefit.
Lazio's written policy positions are meaningless because the Republicans have repeatedly claimed to be for smaller government and then expanded government. The policy positions of someone like Lazio have the same weight as the e-mails from Nigeria offering to deposit $10 million in your bank account if you give them the id number. Even big government waster George W. Bush did not say that he was for big government. Rather, he claimed to be for "compassionate conservatism" before passing a massive subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry and advocating increasing restrictions on civil liberties.
The Libertarian candidate, Warren Redlich, posts a piece about Republicans for Cuomo on his blog. Philosophically I agree with Redlich, and do not see a vote for a minor party as throwing one's vote away if there is no viable alternative. But a message needs to be sent to the pathetic New York GOP this year that (a) the bailout was unacceptable; (b) the pattern of Republicans claiming to be for smaller government when they are not is unacceptable; and (c) the in-grown old boy network of Alfonse D'Amato and George Pataki has to be brought down.
Of course, there is still a chance that Paladino, who is outside of New York's pathetic GOP establishment, can still win. Otherwise, it will be a tough choice between Redlich and Cuomo.
1. Stand down and don't vote for Governor at all
2. Support Warren Redlich, Libertarian Party candidate for governor
3. Join the ranks of Republicans for Cuomo.
Although I do not like Cuomo, in fact I view him as equaling Lazio, I think it is important for the GOP to stop supporting candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Lazio was a paid lobbyist for JP Morgan. But any candidate I support would be thinking about ways of reducing special interests' excessive capture of government. I am puzzled how Lazio could possibly resist providing largess to special interests when he has lobbied for it professionally. As well, the bailout of the banking industry in 2008 was the worst government policy of the past 25 years, yet Lazio was deeply involved in it. Hence, it is difficult to see how he would support policies that are antagonistic to big government given that such expansion has largely been to his own benefit.
Lazio's written policy positions are meaningless because the Republicans have repeatedly claimed to be for smaller government and then expanded government. The policy positions of someone like Lazio have the same weight as the e-mails from Nigeria offering to deposit $10 million in your bank account if you give them the id number. Even big government waster George W. Bush did not say that he was for big government. Rather, he claimed to be for "compassionate conservatism" before passing a massive subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry and advocating increasing restrictions on civil liberties.
The Libertarian candidate, Warren Redlich, posts a piece about Republicans for Cuomo on his blog. Philosophically I agree with Redlich, and do not see a vote for a minor party as throwing one's vote away if there is no viable alternative. But a message needs to be sent to the pathetic New York GOP this year that (a) the bailout was unacceptable; (b) the pattern of Republicans claiming to be for smaller government when they are not is unacceptable; and (c) the in-grown old boy network of Alfonse D'Amato and George Pataki has to be brought down.
Of course, there is still a chance that Paladino, who is outside of New York's pathetic GOP establishment, can still win. Otherwise, it will be a tough choice between Redlich and Cuomo.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
