Given the ethics of capitalism and its closeness to a meritocracy it is a mystery why so many dislike it. Of course, the ruling classes in the alternative systems do not like having their position in the established social hierarchy challenged by the new capitalists. Nevertheless, since feudalism, corporatism and communism (partly) have disappeared some time ago it is surprising that so many still continue to dislike capitalism.
The reasons may be analyzed through different angles – social class, political divide, ideology and history. For instance, the left-wing opposition to capitalism can be illustrated through the frequent attacks on McDonald’s restaurants by anti-capitalists protestors.
Given that left wing ideologues are often driven by envy and a false-hearted love for the poor and aversion of the rich, it seems paradoxical that they choose to vent their ire on a restaurant that serves well the poor rather than on a luxury stores like Prada or Bugatti which serve the rich.
McDonald’s is a successful American company in the fast food industry, which now owns 30,000 franchised branches in prime sites in over 120 countries. Its success is mostly due to its ability to offer quality fast food at affordable prices in clean restaurants to a diversified, mostly young, clientele. So, it may be heralded as the symbol of the efficiency of capitalism.
Yet many in the left see McDonald’s as American, authoritarian, abusive of animals, exploitative of workers, unhealthy, unecological, and ruthlessly profiteering. Let me examine some of these claims.
The anti-Americanism endorsed by the left is largely a result of the cold war. And, because many in the left were on the communist side, they needed an American symbol to attack beyond the USA flag. Now, after the collapse of communism, its former supporters sought to rationalize their past ideology by turning to protectionism and anti-globalization. Again, McDonald’s, with its restaurants in every major city of the world, provided a visible symbol of globalization.
In the same way, the left sought new constituencies. For instance, by claiming that McDonald’s was authoritarian as it forced its franchisees to stick to the company brand. Afterwards, since they could not contest McDonald’s superior sanitary levels in the fast food industry, they turned to animal lovers by claiming that it was abusive of animals.
In fact they omit the fact that McDonald’s does not run any farms. However, because they are the main purchasers of some farm produce they want McDonald’s (not the governments) to force its suppliers to follow the demands of the animal rights groups.
The same tactic is used by environmental movements with arguments that are even more ludicrous. For instance, some blame McDonald’s rigorous demand for consistent ingredients for the existence of large chemical conglomerates like Monsanto or Cargill producing soil-damaging fertilizers.
The charge that an irresponsible marketing used by McDonald’s promotes unhealthy diets and obesity is also common.
It is true that kids today do not follow good diets. But can the Big Macs or Chicken Nuggets be blamed for that? Obviously not. The blame lies with their families and schools which, for financial and work reasons, have progressively replaced home-cooked food with cheap frozen meals and takeaways.
Indeed, one of the reasons why McDonald’s is so popular with kids is that they consider a meal there as better than the takeaway around the corner or the fish fingers they eat at school. If anything, the McDonald’s experience shows that it is possible to offer decent meals at an affordable price.
It is not necessary to be an economist to understand that in economies run on a pro-profit basis quality will take over cheap production, since a race to the bottom inevitably condemns its players to failure in a growing economy.
So, the left’s dislike of McDonald’s is fundamentally ideological. Because it epitomizes a living proof that profit-seeking benefits the poor, they see McDonald’s as a threat to their own propaganda.
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 April 2015
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
My K&H (Keynes/Hayek) mix
To the (limited) extent that I am a disciple of past intellectuals I must say that Keynes and Hayek are my favourite thinkers. This may seem odd, since they are the two “prophets” behind the current divide between left and right wing schools of economics. Am I confused or opportunistic in this eclectic position? I hope not, as I will try to show next.
Keynes and Hayek were two leading economists, which rank among other great economists like Adam Smith, Ricardo or Jevons. But they were also mathematicians, philosophers and political activists. If I were to judge them on these four fields I would say that Keynes was a better mathematician and economist while Hayek was a better philosopher and they were equally good in politics. But the reason for me being simultaneous a Keynesian and a Hayekian lies on their views on the role of the state in the economy.
They were bitterly divided on the role of the state in managing the business cycle, with Keynes in favour and Hayek against. But in my view they were both right. Keynes was right to advocate demand management during the peaks and troughs of the business cycle and Hayek was right in advocating no state intervention in the economy during normal times.
So I will follow each one of them depending on the stage in the business cycle. That is, I will be Hayekian or Keynesian as illustrated in the following diagram:
During the coloured periods I would be 100% Keynesian and 50% Hayekian and during the rest of the period I would be 100% Hayekian (I would not be 0% Hayekian during recessions because the economic stimulus must be designed without encroaching collectivist trends in the economy).
And, of course, I may be more or less sanguine in my views. For instance, conservatives may accept Keynesianism only during the pink periods in a trough but call for it during green periods in a peak, while leftists may ask for intervention during green periods in a trough but only advocate it during pink periods in a peak.
I could refine further my analysis by considering other variables (e.g. unemployment) or by replacing the long term average growth rate by other metric to define business cycle troughs and peaks. However, it would not be changing the fact that during most of the time I should be predominantly Hayekian as far as demand management is concerned.
This does not mean that on average I like more Hayek´s economic writings, on the contrary, or that I am inconsistent or opportunistic in my views; even if I fail to recognize in a timely manner that we have entered a business cycle peak or trough.
In conclusion, there is plenty of room to be more or less moderate in the relevance we give the two “prophets”, but we need to understand and follow both.
Keynes and Hayek were two leading economists, which rank among other great economists like Adam Smith, Ricardo or Jevons. But they were also mathematicians, philosophers and political activists. If I were to judge them on these four fields I would say that Keynes was a better mathematician and economist while Hayek was a better philosopher and they were equally good in politics. But the reason for me being simultaneous a Keynesian and a Hayekian lies on their views on the role of the state in the economy.
They were bitterly divided on the role of the state in managing the business cycle, with Keynes in favour and Hayek against. But in my view they were both right. Keynes was right to advocate demand management during the peaks and troughs of the business cycle and Hayek was right in advocating no state intervention in the economy during normal times.
So I will follow each one of them depending on the stage in the business cycle. That is, I will be Hayekian or Keynesian as illustrated in the following diagram:
During the coloured periods I would be 100% Keynesian and 50% Hayekian and during the rest of the period I would be 100% Hayekian (I would not be 0% Hayekian during recessions because the economic stimulus must be designed without encroaching collectivist trends in the economy).
And, of course, I may be more or less sanguine in my views. For instance, conservatives may accept Keynesianism only during the pink periods in a trough but call for it during green periods in a peak, while leftists may ask for intervention during green periods in a trough but only advocate it during pink periods in a peak.
I could refine further my analysis by considering other variables (e.g. unemployment) or by replacing the long term average growth rate by other metric to define business cycle troughs and peaks. However, it would not be changing the fact that during most of the time I should be predominantly Hayekian as far as demand management is concerned.
This does not mean that on average I like more Hayek´s economic writings, on the contrary, or that I am inconsistent or opportunistic in my views; even if I fail to recognize in a timely manner that we have entered a business cycle peak or trough.
In conclusion, there is plenty of room to be more or less moderate in the relevance we give the two “prophets”, but we need to understand and follow both.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Capitalism and Keynesianism (Left and Right)
Market capitalism is an economic system based on free competition. In theory, it is a system that guarantees automatic market equilibrium and the optimal allocation of resources over the long term. In the short run disequilibrium is a recurrent feature of the system that is permanently corrected through competition.
To put it simply, excessive supply is reduced through diminishing profits and insufficient supply is raised up by entrepreneurs in the lookout for profit opportunities created by such shortages. Unfortunately, this process of automatic adjustment is not instantaneous and in practice market capitalism is naturally bound by cycles in business activity, popularly known as recessions and booms.
Keynesianism is a set of policies advocated by Keynes to smooth such business cycles. Writing in the aftermath of the crisis of 1929, Keynes proposals were aimed at deep and prolonged recessionary phases when the entrepreneurs drive for action, which he termed “animal spirits”, was so depressed that they were unable to restore growth by profiting from the opportunities created by supply destruction.
For these circumstances he advocated a demand shock through monetary and fiscal easing, or just increased government spending for economies caught in a so-called liquidity trap (when interest rates were close to zero). Using a medical analogy, Keynesianism advocates the prescription of hard drugs to treat a severe depression.
It is obvious why his economic stimulus therapy is necessarily controversial. Similarly to hard drugs, more public spending has many negative side effects (most importantly, it may reduce the share of market capitalism in the economy and its competitiveness). Just as doctors may disagree on the severity of a particular depression and the efficacy of soft treatments like exercise and therapy, economists also disagree on the effectiveness of soft supply-side treatments such as more training, deregulation and labour market flexibility to treat severe recessions.
Regrettably, these controversies are inevitably more tainted by ideology in economics than in medicine. So, those more collectivist-driven will see in any mild reduction in economic activity (say a quarterly decline in GDP or a rise in unemployment) a justification for more government intervention. Likewise, when faced with a severe recession (e.g. four or five consecutive quarters of economic contraction), those terrified by the danger of collectivism will repudiate any intervention and ask for more patience to give time for the automatic forces of competition to wake up.
On the collectivist side we often find leftist politicians. And, not surprisingly, Keynesianism is often confused with a left-wing ideology. This is compounded by the fact that some of the most famous Keynesians (e.g. Joan Robison in the past and Paul Krugman today) are influential leftist ideologues.
This is obviously a mistaken perception, because we have many collectivist advocates on the right. Most notably, among them we have the advocates of state and managerial capitalism including many right-wing Corporatists and Christian-democrats.
Indeed, Keynesianism is not about left or right but about wisdom and common sense. That is, economists and politicians should be able to assess in a dispassionate way when to give up on the automatic resumption of growth through the self-correcting mechanisms of competition and to be able to carefully design stimulus packages that do not hypothecate the future of market capitalism.
Common sense must be based on simple benchmarks. For instance, demand-management policies should only be adopted when unemployment exceeds a given range (say, 8% for collectivists and 12% for libertarians). Currently, using such criterion, we need Keynesianism in Southern Europe but not in the rest of the Eurozone. This is obviously a difficult but not impossible task in the context of a monetary union.
To conclude we need Keynesianism as a temporary solution for special circumstances. But we are left without knowing if Keynesianism also can be used in a pre-emptive way to face anticipated external shocks (e.g. a breakup of the Euro Zone). This controversial issue is left for a future post.
To put it simply, excessive supply is reduced through diminishing profits and insufficient supply is raised up by entrepreneurs in the lookout for profit opportunities created by such shortages. Unfortunately, this process of automatic adjustment is not instantaneous and in practice market capitalism is naturally bound by cycles in business activity, popularly known as recessions and booms.
Keynesianism is a set of policies advocated by Keynes to smooth such business cycles. Writing in the aftermath of the crisis of 1929, Keynes proposals were aimed at deep and prolonged recessionary phases when the entrepreneurs drive for action, which he termed “animal spirits”, was so depressed that they were unable to restore growth by profiting from the opportunities created by supply destruction.
For these circumstances he advocated a demand shock through monetary and fiscal easing, or just increased government spending for economies caught in a so-called liquidity trap (when interest rates were close to zero). Using a medical analogy, Keynesianism advocates the prescription of hard drugs to treat a severe depression.
It is obvious why his economic stimulus therapy is necessarily controversial. Similarly to hard drugs, more public spending has many negative side effects (most importantly, it may reduce the share of market capitalism in the economy and its competitiveness). Just as doctors may disagree on the severity of a particular depression and the efficacy of soft treatments like exercise and therapy, economists also disagree on the effectiveness of soft supply-side treatments such as more training, deregulation and labour market flexibility to treat severe recessions.
Regrettably, these controversies are inevitably more tainted by ideology in economics than in medicine. So, those more collectivist-driven will see in any mild reduction in economic activity (say a quarterly decline in GDP or a rise in unemployment) a justification for more government intervention. Likewise, when faced with a severe recession (e.g. four or five consecutive quarters of economic contraction), those terrified by the danger of collectivism will repudiate any intervention and ask for more patience to give time for the automatic forces of competition to wake up.
On the collectivist side we often find leftist politicians. And, not surprisingly, Keynesianism is often confused with a left-wing ideology. This is compounded by the fact that some of the most famous Keynesians (e.g. Joan Robison in the past and Paul Krugman today) are influential leftist ideologues.
This is obviously a mistaken perception, because we have many collectivist advocates on the right. Most notably, among them we have the advocates of state and managerial capitalism including many right-wing Corporatists and Christian-democrats.
Indeed, Keynesianism is not about left or right but about wisdom and common sense. That is, economists and politicians should be able to assess in a dispassionate way when to give up on the automatic resumption of growth through the self-correcting mechanisms of competition and to be able to carefully design stimulus packages that do not hypothecate the future of market capitalism.
Common sense must be based on simple benchmarks. For instance, demand-management policies should only be adopted when unemployment exceeds a given range (say, 8% for collectivists and 12% for libertarians). Currently, using such criterion, we need Keynesianism in Southern Europe but not in the rest of the Eurozone. This is obviously a difficult but not impossible task in the context of a monetary union.
To conclude we need Keynesianism as a temporary solution for special circumstances. But we are left without knowing if Keynesianism also can be used in a pre-emptive way to face anticipated external shocks (e.g. a breakup of the Euro Zone). This controversial issue is left for a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
