How Much Rigidity is Enough?
and what can anyone do to help
After critiquing “rigidity” yesterday, that the modern western state has come to mean rigid government, rigid regulations, rigid bureaucracy, rigid ideology, I thought to myself: what would I recommend if I got to be the guy in Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt’s “state of exception” with the power to move mountains?
Then I thought, let’s ask the Germans. They have two populist parties right now, the “far-right” Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) and the “left-wing” Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW). Both parties are going for immigration restriction. So that leaves economic policy. Wikipedia says
AfD is an economic liberal party… Despite the 2015 split of economic liberals, AfD can still be broadly characterized as neoliberal on economic terms, emphasizing deregulation and much limited state intervention.
Whatabout the BSW? Wiki says
The BSW supports economic interventionism and greater welfare social benefits, which are to be financed by the wealthy, while assets and inheritances should be spared… BSW is strongly critical of growing social injustice, the power and influence of multinational corporations[.]
So you can see that the AfD is more economically moderate, while the BSW is into serious “economic interventionism.” Who is right? And who is more extreme?
I would say that the “far-right” AfD is more moderate and sensible than the “left-wing” BSW. (Imagine!) And I say this not because I am an economic libertarian, a follower of Mises and Hayek, but because I think that any honest reporter must look back on the last century of economic interventionism, from communism to socialism to neoliberalism to what have you, and accept the fact that no government, no ruling class, has a clue as far as the economy is concerned.
Communism in Russia and China led to economic breakdown and famine.
New Deal liberalism failed to pull the US out of the Great Depression — until the economy “revived” with World War II spending.
Welfare state socialism produced 0 to 3 percent growth in the UK after World War II when the German Wirtschaftwunder produced three years of double-digit growth and ten years of 7 percent growth.
Current “neoliberal” — or whatever you call it — economic policy in Europe and the US has produced weak growth.
And that’s to say nothing about all the monetary policy to-ings and fro-ings and the fashionable interventions like freeways in one decade and fast railways in another decade and today’s climate change and monkeying with tariffs.
But there is one clear thing that I think we can all agree on. The economy changes; industries come and go, and nobody knows what will come next. I think that government can help workers that are losing their jobs in declining industries. But in what way, and how much? I suspect that the best way to help people in the buggy-whip industry would be to create a culture where billionaires that help people get awarded gold medals and other prizes.
But whatabout offshoring of strategic industries and China stealing technology? Yeah it’s a problem, but one fine day China’s per-capita GDP will be close to ours and China’s interest will be rather different. But it could take a while, since China is now at $12,000 and the US is at $68,0000 per capita GDP. Yes, we could do a lot of things to protect American jobs from Chinese competition, but I suspect that whatever we do, it won’t make much difference. Why? Because people in politics don’t really have a clue about the economy. Then there’s India. Per-capita GDP is $2,500. Oops: that could take a while.
I get it. The whole point of human society and government and all the economic and social and mutual-aid organiations is to protect people from the icy blast of life without human community.
But the record is that we humans aren’t very good at protecting everyone. In fact a lot of the time we make things worse with our wars and our latest crackpot theory.
And then I think of Garet Carrett in The American Story and his tale of the land-hungry people arriving from Europe and often just going out west to find some patch of land to own and grow food. It makes you stop and think: what was it about the olden time that gave people the reckless courage to do such a thing? Was it desperation? Was it astonishing courage? What it ridiculous hope?
But I’d say that it would help to figure out what was going on back then. Maybe folks back then weren’t too different from the migrants that are trekking today across the Darien Gap.