Cafe Hayek
where orders emerge
Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Yesterday Pres. Obama pleaded with members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “Ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation” (“Obama Vows to ‘Knock Down’ Business Barriers,” Feb. 8).
The job of entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners and managers is to invest and to produce in ways that are most likely to yield the highest profit in the market. Period. By doing so, businesses follow the best available signals to guide them to promote the well-being of others. The additional goals that Mr. Obama wants business people to pursue sound splendid when trumpeted in public speeches but, in practice, are far too nebulous to be workable. No business person can possibly know enough to do consistently and successfully what Mr. Obama asks.
As on so many issues, Adam Smith’s wisdom remains relevant: “By pursuing his own interest he [the business person] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux
UPDATE: My friend Peter Minowitz writes in response: “Here’s a minor riposte – Given your [DBx's] dedication as a letter writer, you presumably think that meaningful benefits are routinely created by ‘those who affect[ed] to WRITE for the public good.’ Trying to promote the wealth of NATIONS, Smith too was a conspicuously public-spirited author (this also applies to TMS).” To which I say only, Touche! Good point.
View Comments Share var addthis_options = 'facebook, twitter, digg, buzz, delicious, reddit, stumbleupon, friendfeed, google, linkedin, yahoobkm, technorati, wordpress, blogger, typepad, more'; var addthis_exclude = 'email, print'; Print Email
AnonymousThe economy works entirely on disagreement.
I trade with you when we disagree about the relative values of what we have.
Each of us winds up with something we value more than before.
The increase in total value is why the trade happens.
Add those increases in value – due entirely to disagreement – over the nation, and standard of living of the nation rises.
An alternative plan is not a good idea.
John VThat’s the feel-good factor of political rhetoric. Worthless.
Pave the roads, run the needed agencies and zip it.
KrishnanObama is clueless about the economy – and that is the most polite thing I can say. The reality is sinister however – as to what he really wants to see happen …(IMO)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/obamas-got-wrong-comes-job-creation/
(sorry if this was referenced anywhere else … Lott captured it quite well)
KrishnanObama is clueless about the economy – and that is the most polite thing I can say. The reality is sinister however – as to what he really wants to see happen …(IMO)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/obamas-got-wrong-comes-job-creation/
(sorry if this was referenced anywhere else … Lott captured it quite well)
LTBI always hated Adam Smith’s take on social order. All this crap of “self-interest” has done a gigantic disservice to liberal ideas. People can’t relate to this lonely-atom-man pursuing endlessly his own benefits. Human beings are not like that.
Hayek’s vision of social order is much greater than that.
JohnKGovernment is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”
–Harry Browne
KrishnanWatch it … If you do not specify “needed” – everything will be NEEDED – as this current bunch is demanding and implementing … National defense, an impartial justice system … perhaps one or two more things we may need as a group to maintain civility/structure
KrishnanWatch it … If you do not specify “needed” – everything will be NEEDED – as this current bunch is demanding and implementing … National defense, an impartial justice system … perhaps one or two more things we may need as a group to maintain civility/structure
Don BoudreauxShow me one place in Smith where he discusses, or endorses, a “lonely-atom-man.” You’ll not find it.
JohnK“Once the government becomes the supplier of people’s needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right.” "”Lawrence Auster
purplefoxI can’t decide if Obama is softening us up for socialism or fascism. Probably both!
AnonymousWhat about Smith’s writings on sympathy, the impartial observer, and moral sentiments? To assess Smith’s take on social order, I think you have to read more than one of his books.
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams Sam GroveSocialism is touted for the general good and fascism for the good of the state. Both employ the same means, to direct human activity by political authority.
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams Sam GroveThis is a straw man charge often made against libertarians because we champion the rights of individuals as opposed to some special rights of collectives of individuals.
But man is a social animal as well as an individual.
No one proposes to do away with social order, but rather to enhance it by holding up the rights of individuals that they may enjoy harmonious relations with one another rather than subject each other to the dubious authority of collective power.
That individuals have a right to properties in their lives and produce requires a prohibition against taking of life and property, and that this prohibition apply equally to any arbitrary collection of individuals.
That majorities rule by collective power is a physical reality that can only be restrained, in the end, by the acceptance of moral restraints by individuals on their contribution to collective power, even as manifested in the collective agency of the state.
purplefoxWe’ve already got GM and Kathleen Sebelius was telling insurance companies how to run their business (fascism). On the other hand, the unemployed have been paid to not work for multiple years, and now businesses owe people jobs (socialism). I hope a different president will take us off the road to serfdom!
JohnKWhat we need is for those in power to see unintended consequences not as reason for more legislation and regulation, but as reason to repeal the legislation and regulation that created those unintended consequences.
But if you criticize the results of their policy they react as if you criticized their intentions, so I don’t see that happening.
What is going to happen is that all these new rules will result in unintended consequences that will be used as reason to create more rules that will result in unintended consequences which will be used as reason to create more rules… until the word “freedom” no longer means “to do that which is not prohibited” and becomes “to do that which is allowed”.
AnonymousSam, you are always succint but could you expand on your last statement–there is a lot in one sentence it merits a little more explaining.
AnonymousBut don’t read more than two!
http://www.in.gov/iwm/2334.htm The Other EricAside from the spelling of the words, is there a difference?
http://www.in.gov/iwm/2334.htm The Other EricObama is not a stupid man, and yet this speech underlines the most idiotic of ideas– that the economy is about job creation. It would certainly serve his needs if firms would just hire people, any people, but the speech fundamentally makes no sense.
In the speech he again calls for deficit spending to create high-speed rail lines. Look at how he uses “we” instead of “the government” and how he does not admit to what really costs businesses… “We also have a responsibility as a nation to provide our people and our businesses with the fastest, most reliable way to move goods and information. The costs to business from the outdated and inadequate infrastructure we currently have are enormous.” That’s right, it’s the fault of the infrastructure you already paid for with taxes. We need high-speed rail, even though environmental and local groups will fight it tooth-and-nail…
He then defends the massively complex and politically self-serving tax code, banking regulations, bailouts and deficit spending stimulus plans with: “Few of us would want to live in a society without rules that keep our air and water clean.” Really? That’s the only way to frame regulations is that without them we all die? That’s the rhetorical flourish that makes him so brilliant?
He said: “Not every regulation is bad. Not every regulation is burdensome on business. A lot of the regulations that are out there are things that all of us welcome in our lives.” He really, fundamentally, believes that by saying ‘not every’ we somehow will not notice the 234,000 pages of federal regulations that were added to our lives over the past 18 years.
If you read this speech and his state of the union, it’s hard not to think he’s the most calculating, dishonest and cynical president we’ve had since Nixon.
purplefoxSocialism is where all businesses belong to the gov’t. Fascism is where you get to keep your company, but the gov’t tells you exactly how to run it. The end result of both is probably indistinguishable to most of “us.”
JohnKHe’s breaking legs and handing out crutches.
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams Sam GroveAnything specific you’d like me to address?
http://SmithHayek.com Jeffry EricksonThe economy works entirely on disagreement.
I trade with you when we disagree about the relative values of what we have.
Each of us winds up with something we value more than before.
The increase in total value is why the trade happens.
Add those increases in value – due entirely to disagreement – over the nation, and standard of living of the nation rises.
An alternative plan is not a good idea.
That’s the feel-good factor of political rhetoric. Worthless.
Pave the roads, run the needed agencies and zip it.
Obama is clueless about the economy – and that is the most polite thing I can say. The reality is sinister however – as to what he really wants to see happen …(IMO)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/obamas-got-wrong-comes-job-creation/
(sorry if this was referenced anywhere else … Lott captured it quite well)
Obama is clueless about the economy – and that is the most polite thing I can say. The reality is sinister however – as to what he really wants to see happen …(IMO)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/obamas-got-wrong-comes-job-creation/
(sorry if this was referenced anywhere else … Lott captured it quite well)
I always hated Adam Smith’s take on social order. All this crap of “self-interest” has done a gigantic disservice to liberal ideas. People can’t relate to this lonely-atom-man pursuing endlessly his own benefits. Human beings are not like that.
Hayek’s vision of social order is much greater than that.
Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”
–Harry Browne
Watch it … If you do not specify “needed” – everything will be NEEDED – as this current bunch is demanding and implementing … National defense, an impartial justice system … perhaps one or two more things we may need as a group to maintain civility/structure
Watch it … If you do not specify “needed” – everything will be NEEDED – as this current bunch is demanding and implementing … National defense, an impartial justice system … perhaps one or two more things we may need as a group to maintain civility/structure
Show me one place in Smith where he discusses, or endorses, a “lonely-atom-man.” You’ll not find it.
“Once the government becomes the supplier of people’s needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right.” "”Lawrence Auster
I can’t decide if Obama is softening us up for socialism or fascism. Probably both!
What about Smith’s writings on sympathy, the impartial observer, and moral sentiments? To assess Smith’s take on social order, I think you have to read more than one of his books.
Socialism is touted for the general good and fascism for the good of the state. Both employ the same means, to direct human activity by political authority.
This is a straw man charge often made against libertarians because we champion the rights of individuals as opposed to some special rights of collectives of individuals.
But man is a social animal as well as an individual.
No one proposes to do away with social order, but rather to enhance it by holding up the rights of individuals that they may enjoy harmonious relations with one another rather than subject each other to the dubious authority of collective power.
That individuals have a right to properties in their lives and produce requires a prohibition against taking of life and property, and that this prohibition apply equally to any arbitrary collection of individuals.
That majorities rule by collective power is a physical reality that can only be restrained, in the end, by the acceptance of moral restraints by individuals on their contribution to collective power, even as manifested in the collective agency of the state.
We’ve already got GM and Kathleen Sebelius was telling insurance companies how to run their business (fascism). On the other hand, the unemployed have been paid to not work for multiple years, and now businesses owe people jobs (socialism). I hope a different president will take us off the road to serfdom!
What we need is for those in power to see unintended consequences not as reason for more legislation and regulation, but as reason to repeal the legislation and regulation that created those unintended consequences.
But if you criticize the results of their policy they react as if you criticized their intentions, so I don’t see that happening.
What is going to happen is that all these new rules will result in unintended consequences that will be used as reason to create more rules that will result in unintended consequences which will be used as reason to create more rules… until the word “freedom” no longer means “to do that which is not prohibited” and becomes “to do that which is allowed”.
Sam, you are always succint but could you expand on your last statement–there is a lot in one sentence it merits a little more explaining.
But don’t read more than two!
Aside from the spelling of the words, is there a difference?
Obama is not a stupid man, and yet this speech underlines the most idiotic of ideas– that the economy is about job creation. It would certainly serve his needs if firms would just hire people, any people, but the speech fundamentally makes no sense.
In the speech he again calls for deficit spending to create high-speed rail lines. Look at how he uses “we” instead of “the government” and how he does not admit to what really costs businesses… “We also have a responsibility as a nation to provide our people and our businesses with the fastest, most reliable way to move goods and information. The costs to business from the outdated and inadequate infrastructure we currently have are enormous.” That’s right, it’s the fault of the infrastructure you already paid for with taxes. We need high-speed rail, even though environmental and local groups will fight it tooth-and-nail…
He then defends the massively complex and politically self-serving tax code, banking regulations, bailouts and deficit spending stimulus plans with: “Few of us would want to live in a society without rules that keep our air and water clean.” Really? That’s the only way to frame regulations is that without them we all die? That’s the rhetorical flourish that makes him so brilliant?
Read Full Article »