The left bias against McDonald's

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.

Left and Right today

Now that capitalism is almost the only economic system worldwide (with a few bizarre exceptions in North Korea and Cuba) does it still makes sense to talk about left and right? Can we distinguish the various types of capitalism using the left and right categorization?

If one uses the left and right categorization to depict a spectrum of opinions that we may represent through a statistical distribution then it still makes sense to talk about the left and right tails of such distribution.

However, we should recall that this categorization originated during the French Revolution to designate where the pro-monarchy (right) and anti-monarchy (left) seated in the French National Assembly (parliament). Later this designation was generalized to other divisions over single issues. In particular, it was extended to describe those in favour of the status quo (conservatives) and those in favour of moderate/drastic reforms (progressives/ radicals).

Historically, the most important split in the XIX century was over the emerging economic system of capitalism. Since this new system affected most aspects of society, it no longer represented a single issue divide. It became a split over a portfolio of visions usually designated as ideologies until the collapse of communism in 1989.

Yet, once a portfolio of visions becomes too diversified, it loses its internal coherence and no longer can be represented by a single distribution with a left and right tail. If I pick a number of divisive issues in economics, politics or moral I may end up sometimes on the right and others on the left.

For example, one of the current raging debates in economics is over the question of government economic stimulus. Typically, the supporters of the status quo sit on the right and the interventionists sit on the left. However, the interventionists are also divided into two opposing camps over the use of pro-cyclical (fiscal austerity) and anti-cyclical (fiscal expansion) policies. Can we split these into left and right?

As an economist, I believe that government intervention must be always counter-cyclical, but should be used only to smooth extreme volatilities in the business cycle. So, with unemployment above 15%, when looking at the labour market, I find myself on the left side. But, with interest rates close to zero, when looking at the bond market, I find myself on the right side against further monetary easing. So, should I average these two distributions and become a centrist? Not really, because these two visions are not necessarily incompatible.

Likewise, I am a strong supporter of market capitalism as the main driver of progress. But it does not mean that I do not accept a limited role to other forms of capitalism like managerial capitalism or state capitalism. Can I grade their relative roles in terms of left and right? Clearly not.

In conclusion, in general terms, in the absence of a coherent portfolio of ideologies we no longer should characterize ourselves as leaning towards the left or the right. But, over single issue divisions one should not be afraid to sit on the tail of the distribution. Under this eclectic approach, do we risk becoming a weathercock turning opportunistically with the prevailing wind? Yes, but it is a risk that should be mitigated by a scrupulous respect for our values and it is a risk worth taking to enjoy the greater benefits of freedom and variety.

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.

The 1960s and Now

The social movements in the 1960s should be an important reminder for the current wave of discontent, whether it is the anti-globalization, Spain’s “yes we camp” or the “Occupy Wall Street” movements.

Then we had the anti-Vietnam War protesters, the hippies and the students’ revolts of May 68 in Paris and elsewhere. Then, like now, various political forces and trade unions tried to profit from the discontent, namely the Maoists who tried to export their “cultural revolution”. My generation was at that time one of the most radical and generous generations - demanding unconditional peace, free love and absolute equality.

My generation is now one the most disillusioned generations, having created just the opposite of what we dreamed then. We have now the greatest inequality, declining social mobility and rampant corporate kleptocracy. How did we replace generosity by greed and fairness by indifference? Why could we get it so wrong?

Partly, as is common in revolutions, because we used slogans and demonstrations instead of intelligent debate. But mostly because we ignored what was happening to the capitalist system and wanted to replace it by XIX century utopias who were failing everywhere but that we choose to ignore or excuse.

We did not anticipate that the simultaneous rise of big government and big corporations without controlling owners would create the conditions for collusion between the two and generate a new plutocracy in society made up of managers and politicians. Progressively we began accepting that management compensation was more important than paying dividends to the capitalists (shareholders).

While in the past the “robber barons” would consider that paying managers more than 40 times the average worker was a steal in their pockets we lost the notion of fairness and began accepting in the 1970s compensation ratios of 60 and more and kept quite while their compensation continued escalating to the current 200 to 400 times over average pay. Meanwhile, we ignored that due to the growth of pension funds and share ownership workers were now part of the capitalists being robbed by the corporate kleptocrats.

Outrageous state growth led to outrageous tax rates and inefficient public services. Instead of rolling it back we introduced tax breaks and privatized the government monopolies. Guess who benefited from these? It was the incumbent insiders in big government and big corporations.

From time to time a new generation feels blocked or despaired about the future and believes that revolution is the only way out. It is understandable. But what should true reformists do? Stand aside and let them learn with their own naiveté and errors? Fight left and right wing prophets and demagogues who are manipulating their discontent into their utopian solutions of the past? Or, join in to explain why market capitalism is the solution not the problem?

I hope many take the last road.