fbpx

Is There a Viable Conservative Alternative to Markets?

Much of the new conservative criticism of markets misses the mark, conflating “modern economy” with “market economy.” However, the key attributes of modern economies exist irrespective whether those economies are organized using markets or not. This matters. When conservatives blame markets for illnesses generic to all modern economies, they misdiagnose the cause and therefore prescribe faulty remedies.

For example, shifts in the terms of international trade resulting from shifts in comparative national advantages or changes in the cost of trade will occur no matter the underlying organization of the internal economies of the different countries. Unless conservative critics of markets recommend economic autarky—no international trade at all—then even economies organized entirely on non-market bases would face economic dislocation akin to market economies wherever shifts in production or transaction costs occur.

So, too, changes in production resulting from technological change. The invention of the computer chip, for example, changed demand for all sorts of workers—and this happens irrespective of whether markets allocate labor or whether some non-market alternative allocates labor.

None of these economic dislocations would be avoided by eliminating or muting markets in an economy.

Even dislocation caused by business cycles is not necessarily the result of markets. “Real business cycle” theory remains a controversial macroeconomic theory—perhaps more controversial today than when economists Finn Kyland and Edward Prescott won the Nobel Memorial Prize for it in 2004. Nonetheless, the theory explains business cycles as the result of changes in “real” economic factors like supply shocks or technological changes rather than a result of the failure of markets to clear in equilibrium.

There is then the question of the extent to which conservatives and libertarians take the existence of “crony capitalism” seriously. If “crony capitalism” is in fact a widespread, endemic aspect of the American economy, then the crony-capitalist portion of the U.S. economy is antithetical to a real market economy. Crony capitalism and its associated pathologies result from political intervention antithetical to free markets. Critically, the U.S. economy need not be all one or all the other. A “dual economy” might best describe the U.S. economy. This is one in which a politically privileged sector of state capitalism exists alongside, and to the detriment of, a competitive market sector. The problem here, though, is the crony-economy, not the market economy.

Finally, domestic losses are not the whole story. Economic and social losses—which are real losses, to be sure—in the U.S. as a result of shifts in the relative cost of production across nations. It is also true that changes in the transaction costs of international trade need to be weighed against gains in other parts of the world, as well as gains to yet other Americans. While Americans, and others, understandably prefer to advance the well-being of their fellow citizens over others, few would argue this in an unqualified way. The world has seen a stunning 1 billion people moved out of extreme poverty in recent decades. These gains are related to the losses of workers in the U.S. and in the West more generally—although, again, many Americans also gain from lower cost production overseas.

And, again, an economy would face these trade-offs whether it was a market economy or a non-market economy.

So what, exactly, is the conservative problem with markets per se, as opposed to a problem with generic aspects of modern economies, whether organized via markets or on a non-market basis?

First, implicit in much conservative criticism is the Polyani-like argument that the problem is not about change itself but about the pace of change. The complaint is that market systems translate changes from trade and technological shocks faster to the domestic economy than would more-politically controlled transitions. The remedy would be to slow down the pace of these changes to a more human scale, allowing more time to acclimate.

Criticisms such as Tucker Carlson’s suggest that American politicians, at the behest of elite economic interests, allow economic transitions to reflect lower-cost production overseas so quickly and abruptly that they cause unnecessary economic and social harm. Because this pain concentrates in lower socioeconomic strata, the argument goes, American political and economic elites do not care. Additionally, elites use the ostensible ideology of the autonomous market as an excuse to justify the neglect.

This objection, however, divides more along the lines of populist/elite governance than it does between market/non-market economies. After all, elites gain from these transitions whether or not the underlying economy is a market or non-market economy. Why would one think political elites in non-market economies would implement economic transitions slower than American politicians? Did common folk experience less exploitation at the hands of political elites in the old Soviet Union than they do in the U.S. because Soviet elites lacked the justification of the autonomous market?

The speed at which elites in a nation allow a transition that harms particular sectors within that nation seems more a reflection of the allocation of political power and political organization rather than a reflection of its internal economic organization. Perhaps Carlson and others have identified a problem with America’s politics rather than with American markets.

Beyond the speed of transition, however, the more radical conservative criticism takes on instrumentalist rationality—the cash nexus—engendered by the penetration of market relationships into life and consciousness relative to non-market systems.

Markets, and market rationality, the claim goes, liquidate traditional relationships. This is a well-known account, particularly in sociology, regarding the shift from “community” to “society” (or gemeinschaft to gesellschaft). This is a deeper objection to markets than the complaint that markets communicate economic transitions too quickly. Yet there are problems with the argument. It reflects economic determinism. This is ironic given the critics commitment to the superiority of the social over the economic. Beyond that, the argument reflects the temptation to romanticize pre-modern social and economic relationships.

Whatever the answer, however, here’s the rub: As a practical matter, how can American society replicate ostensibly more-humane, pre-industrial non-market economic organization of the past while maintaining the efficiencies reflected in advanced modern economies? I have yet to see even a remotely satisfying answer to that question on the right.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 30, 2019 at 12:05:59 pm

"Perhaps Carlson and others have identified a problem with America’s politics rather than with American markets." - YEP!

I would add that Carlson, not unlike many others (myself included) objects to the rather callous disregard for the effects of this "politicized - crony" economy that many on the right, see NRO, etc, exhibit.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 30, 2019 at 12:26:06 pm

BTW:

Let us not forget that other restriction on a *free market* - government imposed constraints as evidenced here by California Public Utility commission and Governor Moonbeam Brown's regulations / impositions:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/pge_files_for_chapter_22_bankruptcy.html

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 30, 2019 at 13:09:34 pm

Don't annoy Rogers while he's worshiping the Golden Calf.

There are all kinds of markets and there has never been a free market beyond the primitive bartering of a bit of extra flint for a bit of extra iron.

At a minimum, open (not "free") markets require government provided security, uniform standards of weights and measures and some sort of commercial code and arbitrators to resolve the disputes that always arise in commercial transactions. Initially, the merchant had to pay a tax to participate in such markets but because these markets were generally beneficial the cost of maintaining these markets was soon transferred to the consumer-taxpayers.

There are framers' markets, labor markets, domestic markets, international markets and super markets but Carlson's particular beef is with the global financial markets, which are the markets favored by the rent seekers who have bribed lawmakers into passing laws that favor their sources of income above all others.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on January 31, 2019 at 10:44:58 am

"At a minimum, open (not “free”) markets require government provided security, uniform standards of weights and measures and some sort of commercial code and arbitrators to resolve the disputes that always arise in commercial transactions." - Question begging.

You have not shown that government is both a necessary and sufficient answer to the market desire for security, standards, law etc.

Going back to the days of VHS vs BETAMAX VCR standards, industry was able to agree on a standard that still did not prevent the production of BETA tapes & players, yet satisfied market demands.

The English common law was discovered by private courts, merchants courts etc that were not government controlled.

Scientific societies can certainly create and provide standards on a for-profit or charitable means.

read full comment
Image of OH Anarcho-Capitalist
OH Anarcho-Capitalist
on January 31, 2019 at 14:22:47 pm

For your edification; transaction costs in markets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost

The practice of establishing regulated markets and suppressing unregulated markets in the US dates back to the early 1630s in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Bay Colony was merely continuing the long established practice in England.

Market towns were required to establish weights and measures, the hours of operation of the markets, assess fees for participation by merchants and the colony's courts were open to hear complaints. The security was provided by the town constable and justice of the peace.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on April 10, 2019 at 11:15:14 am

[…] Yet while criticisms abound, there are few workable alternatives being offered by conservatives to replace markets. As James R. Rogers observes, […]

read full comment
Image of Is there an actual conservative alternative to markets? | Acton PowerBlog
Is there an actual conservative alternative to markets? | Acton PowerBlog

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related