Which reality based economist do rightists fear most?

Post Reply New Topic

As we all know, rightwingers, who are rhetorically free-market utopians but in actuality corporate welfare statists, tend to fear economists who actually look at the real world, with its monopolistic competition, instability, and irrational behaviour as opposed to the oversimplified ideals of perfect competition, self-equilibrating markets, and rational consumers. While going through the process of one-sided deregulation (i.e. removing the restrictions on corporate behaviour without removing the corporate safety net), rightists tend to speak of how much "tax cuts create jobs" no matter how low the actual tax rate is and deride all regulation as some unnatural interference with a perfect system (which, ironically enough, parrellels a lot of the same mentality that organic food eating luddites possess, perhaps explaining why the "eco-capitalist" movement is gaining so much ground).

But economists who actually look at history, human behaviour, and various institutions tend to come up with different conclusions. These "reality based" economsits are the worst enemies of the New Right - for two reasons

1) They show how poor free-market theories are.
2) They show what hypocrites "free-market" rightwingers are for the variety of HUGE GOVERMENT corporate welfare measures they give out - be it in a bloated military-industrial complex or with monopolistic patent protection.

Now, my question, is which of these reality based economists do rightwingers fear most?

John Maynard Keynes: Founder of macroeconomics, which doesn't procede on assumptions as simple as classical microeconomics. Recognized herd mentality and the need for state intervention on occassion.

John Kenneth Galbraith: Described what would (and is) happening when you let private luxury trump public need.

Hyman Minsky:: Described the inherently unstable nature of finance - destroyed the perfectly efficient market hypothesis with his financial instability hypothesis.

Dean Baker: Has documented a treasure trove of cases where the Con Artists LOVE the intervention of HUGE GOVERNMENT. Helping the poor and vulnerable isn't one of them, mind you.

Paul Krugman: While he isn't really that radical, as an economist who writes of stuff other than free-market fantasies in a major paper, he'll forever have the ire of the Con Artists.

Joseph Stiglitz: Deflated myths of IMF neoliberal policies (actually existing globalization) as being the same as ideal globalization as presented in econ 101 textbooks.

Robert Shiller: Came up with a useful empirical tool - the Shiller Index - and is hence the arch-nemesis of a priorists everywhere. Incorporates too much actual human psychology into his models for the tastes of the neoclassicists.

As you can see, the Con Artists have a lot of people in economics to fear.

I say Keynes. I've heard conservatives try to villify or discredit Krugman, but I don't think it comes close to the ire that the Keynesian economic model invokes from the right. Because, of course, allowing the government to have any role at all in regulating the corporations and making sure they aren't totally fleecing their consumers is that evil S-word.

Oh, and Ayn Rand was the Messiah.

I voted for Krugman, b/c he seems more real and present, and writes regularly in the NYT. One hears him bashed by the right (at least on the 5-minute snippets of Fox that I can stand at a time) more than Keynes.

That's pretty ironic, as Keynesianism was bastardized quite a bit in the neoclassical synthesis and has been made even more palpable to the free-market idealists in forms such as New Keynesianism. It's behavorial economists, Post-Keynesians, and critical institutionalists who the New Right should be really fearing.

No, it really is Keynesians they should be fearing, because the Post-Keynesians do not hold enough sway over the economics community to be a serious problem for the right. Even the neoclassical synthesis allows for a strong governmental role in taxing, subsidizing, regulating, and even redistributing wealth.

I don't even understand a fear of Keynes though. There are a number of right-wing Keynesians. Greg Mankiw, the former Bush adviser, is a New Keynesian.

I'm going with Krugman. He isn't all that radical, but he seems to have moved to the left since the 1990s. He was a big defender of Clinton in the 90s, but is critical of Obama from the left.

I hope this is all just empty rhetoric. If you were being serious, then I'd have to consider you dishonest in your approach.
1) Friedrich Hayek, one of the gods of the right-wing, has dealt with history (he's written books on the development of law, been involved with a historiography on capitalism and economics, and his nobel prize was for studying the history of business cycles), he's dealt with human behavior (Hayek independently discovered connectionism, a theory of of the neurology of the mind, although Donald Hebb published first and thus gets credit), and he's even dealt with institutions (like I said, he's written on the development of law)
2) Bryan Caplan, a modern "right-wing ideologue"(actually a radical libertarian), has written extensively on the institutional problems of politics through the lens of human cognitive bias, thus rebutting the idea that "the noise cancels out".
3) Peter Leeson is a specialist in developmental economics, who has worked on a number of historical economic questions. As such, his job is analyzing institutions, history, and even to some extent human behavior.
4) Gary Becker is a right-wing economist, and one of the first major figures to start really analyzing institutions, and his analysis really opened up the doors for the economics and law movement.
5) Deirdre McCloskey(I think, I hope I don't misinterpret her, as she has not been as forthright politically as earlier people, but also shows left-leaning tendencies as a feminist, despite her strong support of markets) is a historian, an expert in the use and nature of rhetoric, and also an expert in institutions, but has written a work defending capitalism, not only as efficient, but also as a powerful human enterprise, engaging people wholly.
6) Tyler Cowen is a libertarian, who has written a book on High Functioning Autism(which earned him an interview posted on this site), and has written articles about psychological bias, as well as the impact of globalization on culture, and political economy.

I mean, Friedrich Hayek alone brings credibility problems on the whole of the idea you seek to push, but there are multiple, very intelligent right-wing economists. (certainly more than on the list, as I tried to limit selections, for instance, I didn't include Milton Friedman despite his work on the history of the money supply. I didn't include Mises, despite his work on bureaucracy. I didn't include Posner, because his free market position has moderated, and because he is more of a figure in law, etc.)

lol. Too true

The mindless variety of conservatives are half-Keynsian. They want tax pay funds to expand their private business when things get slow or slack. Unfortunately they want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. When it comes to pay back time when business picks up these paleo-conservatives are extremely unwilling to be taxed for the payback. They enjoy the benefits readily enough but they are slow or unwilling to make the necessary payback.

John Maynard Keynes was a mathematical genius. His economic strategy was to use the government taxing power as a kind of ballast tank to level out an economy that was listing. He never, ever believed that money could be made out of thin air and that something for nothing was a long term attainable goal.

The politicians both on the left and the right are half Keynsian. They are perfectly willing to redistribute income when it comes to getting votes. The help their corrupt corporate buddies. They have make believe programs to help the poor. But when things pick up they will not boost the taxes necessary to repay the borrowing they did for their "stimulus" packages. The Republicans and the Democrats are both guilty. The only difference is who they identify as the primary beneficiaries. The Republicans run a welfare program for corporations and the Democrats run a welfare program for persons of color. In neither case do they manage the money and the credit sanely.

ruveyn

I’m attracted almost all of Keynes’s economic theory, except that it is highly addictive.

Keynes' approach is very attractive and also very difficult to do right. Keynes was a mathematical genius and he was using negative feedback to promote economic stability. It was a mathematical and engineering approach. When the politicians and the businessmen got a hold of it they screwed it up beyond recognition. If was FUBAR time.

The Keynes approach was very similar to pumping ballast in a large ship on rough seas or when a list develops because of a breech in hull integrity. It is a balancing act, and from mathematical point of view it is extremely delicate and intricate. Politicians are ham-handed fools and buffoons. They have not got the brains to do it right.

ruveyn