I think that completely incorrect. It seems to be a misguided attempt to link some commonality - I am not sure how Large Corporation lobby to have greater Govt (A general example and not an exception to the rule would be helpful for illustration). In fact its the other way around, a larger Govt - requires large corporations - as it becomes hard to comply with increasingly complicated legislative and regulatory requirements (which may be required).
It’s a neat picture. But whilst it’s not unreasonable to note the potential for mutual outrage over the existence of crony capitalism and corporatism, the insight can only take you so far.Many libertarian Tea Party members are likely to be carrying strong ancillary beliefs about political economy, such as Austrian economics, that renders the potential for common ground supremely difficult. For example, if you essentially hold that all corporate malfeasance that isn’t amenable to market correction comes as an epiphenomenon of government, you’re unlikely to be persuaded that you’re really on the same side as the people who are harbour more fundamental critique of corporate power. Similarly you’re not going to be interested in saltwater-freshwater union around monetary policy when you’re a goldbug, or a fiscal policy, when you’re wedded to the most aggressive version of the Ricardian equivalence.
Will's comments are strawman arguements besides an overuse of pretentious vernacular. None of these positions mirror Tea Party positions. It's like quoting 9/11 conspirarcy theorists as evidence of leftist positions.
Nothing I've said was a strawman. It's not wrong to say many (though not all) of the people who self-identify as part of the Tea Party movement are influenced by Austrian economics. Ron Paul was there as part of the original populist emergence of the movement FFS. Even if it's only a lower percentage who are true believers -- there's still obviously a non-trivial element who believe enough of the commitments and rhetoric of the Austrian school to undercuts any real potential for harmony with the populism of OWS. The point about epiphenomenon is also defensible. Speak of monopolies, and Austrians claim government collusion must be behind all sustained monopoly because competition should determine industry structure. Indeed, they wish to scuttle the very same kinds of anti-trust interventions that some in OWS are calling for precisely because they see government as the source of the problem. Speak of risk taking behaviour, and Austrians thump the table about the moral hazard of government bailouts, etc. It's a similar story for dozens of other common critiques of market failures, irrational exuberance, etc. This almost monocausal fixation on the role of government as the originator of every malady will never find common purpose with OWS.
Strawmen argument again:Firstly, I doubt most people, tea party or otherwise understand what Austrian Economics is – your extreme caricaturisation being an example. I think what you may mean is that Tea Partiers believe that self reliance limited govt and free markets work better in principle. One would think this is apparent by our past century (Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, India, China etc). The increasing role of govt worries them – hence the appeal to limited govt. And yes like all political movements including the OWS they can be fanatical in their beliefs.Secondly, I don’t exactly know what OWS stands for and I share their anger at Wall Street Bailouts and the absolute lack of any apologetics from an industry which does not seem to be socially productive. However, a strong concurrent of the OWS seems to be similar to Wall Street – essentially seeking bailouts for themselves – be it student loans, credit card or mortgage debt. It is hard to sympathise with a movement which seems to be narcistically parasitical in its aims. Lets not pretend they stand for greater social good – except in a ‘me’ sense.
Funny how you keep saying these are strawman claims yet you never bother to address any of the specific points. I suggest you go and research what Austrian school thinkers do actually say about monopolies and anti-trust laws, before do you weak-sauce hand-waving act again. You'll see that my characterisation of this issue, and the others, is completely fair and accurate. If that makes the Austrian school extreme in your eyes, well that isn't my claim. I do happen to think that's part of the reason the school finds little favour in mainstream economics but that wasn't my point. Anyway, you seemed to have perceived what I said as some kind of attack on the Tea Party, which has you all defensive, when I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that the sub-set of Tea Party who are libertarian has another sub-set who are influenced by Austrian economics, and some of them have ideological commitments as part of that school which make it nigh impossible for them to find common cause with the OWS on the big picture of political economy and where to attribute blame. I certainly didn't say there were no other constituencies within the Tea Partiers who might be more apt to find the intersection area in that Venn diagram, including other libertarians.
My ‘hand waving’ previously addressed both your pointsTea Party are not adherents of Austrian Economics. That is the same as saying that leftists are Keynesians or that OWS are Maoists. Yes there is affinity between both sets but merely ascribing extreme interpretations of ideological positions do not make a fact. Yes, Hayek is appreciated by Tea Partiers, especially the ‘Road to Serfdom’. While you have asked me to look up Austrian Economics – I would suggest that you get familiar with the literature, it’s quiet obvious you are not. Can you please point out an Austrian reference to the role of government in market corrections as you claim? No you cannot, because there isn’t – you are repeating something you have been told.My wider point would be that Debate is impossible these days, people posture behind symbols – ‘Austrian’, ‘Keynesian’ etc without really knowing what these terms mean while sincerely believing that they do (I also suffer from this, its human). It’s very hard for people to untangle what they really mean – and politics is easy to feel righteous about. I would modify Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent in this relation to – You are being lied to, by yourself.
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED