Posted on 06/07/2019 11:52:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Fox News host Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves of this popular show last night to lambaste Austrian economics and libertarianism, which he views as twin pillars of a failed ideology that doesn't protect American workers and their interests.
The GOP, he argues, is in thrall...
Fox News host Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves of this popular show last night to lambaste Austrian economics and libertarianism, which he views as twin pillars of a failed ideology that doesn't protect American workers and their interests.
The GOP, he argues, is in thrall to free-market corporate interests and esoteric economic theories from dusty textbooks. Republicans remain wedded to unbridled libertarian political philosophy, tax cuts, deregulation, and unilateral free trade, all of which enrich elites but hurt average people. Meanwhile, presidential aspirants like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders offer the American electorate real-world solutions to economic insecurity, jobs, and healthcare.
It's a compelling story, but untrue. Does Carlson honestly think Republican members of Congress are overly theoretical and ideological? And here we thought they were a bunch of unprincipled and poorly-read hacks!1
Does he honestly think the budget-busting GOP of recent political memory, from Bush II (Iraq War, Medicare Part D, Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act), John McCain, Mitt Romney are ideological libertarians? Why did Ron Paul and Rand Paul fare poorly among Republican primary voters, if in fact free-market ideology and its donor class dominate the party? And hasn't the party been overtaken by Trumpist protectionists?
Of course we're pleased when Right populists recognize the influence of the Austrian school, just as we're pleased when Left-liberals at the New Republic convince themselves that Misesean "neoliberalism" has taken over the world. We note that Mises and Rothbard continue to receive criticism decades after their respective deaths, a testament to their deep (and apparently nefarious!) influence and an honor given to few economists.
Carlson, a onetime Cato Institute staffer and Weekly Standard writer, understands both Republican politics and the DC world of think tanks and punditry. When he references the Austrian school or libertarianism, it's shorthand for "Koch money and influence" rather than any real ideology. It's his shorthand for the "self-interests of rich guys," interests given an intellectual veneer by academics and writers who are happy to accept billionaire crumbs in exchange for cozy non-profit sinecures. "Conservatism, Inc." (or "Libertarianism, Inc.") has become an self-serving industry unto itself, sclerotic and ripe for criticism.
There is truth to this. But it's not an ideological truth. Tucker Carlson knows better, He knows full well how tariffs make society overall worse off, how markets make poor Americans far better off than the poor in many countries, why government medicine doesn't work, and how minimum wage laws hurt the least-skilled workers. His argument is about priorities and strategy (and TV ratings), not ideology. And it accepts a fundamental tenet of the Left: self-interest for me is noble and warranted, self-interest for others (especially the rich) is suspicious if not sinister.
In other words, Carlson presents a fundamentally zero-sum perspective, which is to say a fundamentally political perspective.
That said, his populism—particularly his antiwar stance—should not be dismissed. Populism per se is not an ideology, but rather a strategy. It can be imbued with any political philosophy, and thus can be equally dangerous or beneficial. At its core populism questions not only the competence of elites, but also their worthiness. It asks whether elite interests comport with those of average people, and in most cases correctly concludes that political elites have interests at odds with those people.
When elites are state-connected or state-protected, i.e. when they maintain or even derive their wealth and influence through their relationship with the state, libertarians have every obligation to object. Elites in the West—from politicians and bureaucrats to central bankers and media figures to defense contractors and patent-coddled pharmaceutical execs—richly deserve our ire. They screwed things up, and ought to be held accountable.
Tucker Carlson is right about that.
Tariff funded our nation for the first Hundred years. All the founders liked them.
Globalists (Lenin was one) hate tariffs and want free trade.
I don’t like tariffs and (IMHO) neither does Trump. You are right - he is using them as a weapon because he is dealing with countries that love them. I support that. And I expect Trump to win. He won’t end the trade gap but he close it.
But Tucker went beyond tariffs and Trump’s use of them. He leaned very strongly in favor of government intervention in areas of commerce that he (and probably all of us) see as unfair.
That sounds good. Democrats have been running on that sort of solution for a hundreds years or more. But it rarely turns out well. The urge to profit on rules made by Congress is just too powerful a force. More laws. More restrictions. More corruption. Less commerce.
They wanted Free Trade in the sense that they felt it would bring about the collapse of Capitalism and bring about the Communist revolution, not so much that that's what they would have done once in power.
There are some areas where I do believe government intervention is warranted, for cases of National Security.
Anything that our military relies on, should be under our control, crucial supplies. I think we agree that outsourcing steel production to Japan in the 20s and 30s, probably wouldn’t have been the best of ideas.
Energy is another one, look what our dependence on Arab oil has done over the years.
About 15 years ago, I accompanied my wife to a garage sale where the only items of potential interest to me were some books. Hardcover books were priced at a dollar and I was delighted to find an old copy of Mises’ magnum opus, Human Action. As I handed the owner his dollar, he said, “By the way, that book is signed by the author. He was my professor.” And sure enough, it was signed by the master himself.
I wish Mr. Carlson had actually studied real Economics. He is so good on everything else that it is almost a shock to have him attack the Austrian School. The tariff fight with China is about National Security primarily. Trump is trying to undo the system whereby China receives our technology secrets and advancements as fast as we create them, through theft. If Trump could simply eliminate all business taxes and all regulatory restrictions on trade the American Economy would rise so fast due to American Innovation which is unparalleled and to American productivity that American goods are actually cheaper than those from any other country and National Security would be much less a concern because our tech would be advancing much faster than China can implement stolen tech.
Country ? You think too small my friend. How about we run a few galaxies and some star clusters efficiently with it ? Will that change your mind ?
When the Republicans vote to put us back on the gold standard, then I’ll believe they are in “thrall” to the Austrian school.
>
Yes to tax cuts. (Which John Stossel likes).
Yes to deregulation. (Which Stossel also likes).
No to corporate welfare. (Which Stossel hates).
No to taxpayer-funded subsidies (Which Stossel also hates).
No to free trade if it leads to manufacturing jobs going overseas.
>
It wasn’t ‘free trade’ that lead to biz fleeing the U.S., but it’s illegal, leviathan GOVT (ala DoI “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”). Even ‘deregulation’ didn’t mean the TOMES of unconstitutional rules/regs/notices/edicts and the like, let alone their creators, were removed from the equation.
As for tax cuts, that would be automatic once govt was restored to its rightful size/scope (yeah, yeah, we’re still dreaming here, I know).
As for subsidies & welfare (I repeat myself), again they fall into the illegal, unconstitutional side of the equation. Biz would, once again, rise and fall on its own merit.
The problem with Austrian economics is that you cannot play it alone and expect to survive.
Because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY else plays that game.
An Austrian in a world of mercantilists will soon be dead as a door nail.
Sure, Smithian Free Trade is better for all when everyone plays. At least in theory.
But it’s a theory that’s never been observed in practice.
Don’t play soccer in an NFL game.
“Tariffs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income taxes”
Only for the fools that purchase the tariffed product.
Bad tariffs.. evil tariffs! bad tariffs! no tariffs, tariffs bad, tariffs evil!!
Bad tariffs.. evil tariffs! bad tariffs! no tariffs, tariffs bad, tariffs evil!!
Whatever it is that infects GOP swamp dwellers, it ain’t Austrian economics.
Tucker is a free and fair market advocate. What Tucker also realizes is that national security and theft of intellectual property is of paramount importance.
Google “comparative advantage and economics”. Then you will see how free trade helps us. Then you will see how the USA has no comparative advantage in many products and how it would be foolish to manufacture these things in the USA.
Learn game theory. A small group of nations allied as Austrian economic practitioners will surpass Mercantilists provided the group is bigger than the Mercantilist.
Free trade only exists between the states of the United States.... If we are trading with other countries, the don’t share the same ecomic drivers like monetary system, culture, regulations etc....
To think we can free trade with China is like thinking we can have a conversation with a gizzly bear...
You are wrong, Free markets cannot happen between nations. Free markets would be the best policy, if we judge best by the same scale as pure communism being the best. Both can never be, both are horrible policies because they can never be. There simply is no such thing as a free market.
You have unequal money policies, unequal labor laws, unequal pay, and state supported businesses. How could Boeing compete on an even field with Airbus without subsidies, or tax breaks from States, cities, counties or the Feds? They cannot, so even Boeing is not an example of free trade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.