Megan McArdle, one of my all-time favorite bloggers, has an interesting post up entitled “Democracy and Capitalism.” She writes:
I think that the political process will hopelessly screw up the management of this crisis (something which libertarians are perfectly able to see when the government screwing things up is a left-wing populist one in Latin America). But maybe The People, God bless them, deserve to screw up their economy if they want. On principle, I am opposed to saving people from themselves. And anyway, maybe I’m wrong and the wisdom of crowds will prevail.
On the other hand, do they have a right to screw things up for everyone else? Should a populist 60% be allowed to plunge their neighbors deeper into crisis? In the case of America, to plunge the whole world deeper into crisis?
The uncomfortable conclusion I’m coming to is that yes, they should. Ben Bernanke should be hamstrung even though it’s likely that this would make everyone worse off. And people who advocate for ending the independence of the central bank should be willing to accept all that this entails: inflationary monetary policy (the people love inflation!), bad and unpredictible banking policy, the collapse of the US economy. I just wish I didn’t have to go along for the ride.
There is, of course, a middle road. It’s not “either / or.” We can accept the Bernanke / Obama way or the libertarian way. If both are not acceptable (or realistic) to us, we can develop a third way.
But still. It’s an interesting question to ponder. ‘Should a populist 60% be allowed to plunge their neighbors deeper into crisis? In the case of America, to plunge the whole world deeper into crisis?’
My answer is ‘no,’ they should not. And I believe the U.S. Constitution says they shouldn’t either.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael,
You say this “On the other hand, do they have a right to screw things up for everyone else? Should a populist 60% be allowed to plunge their neighbors deeper into crisis? In the case of America, to plunge the whole world deeper into crisis?
And I agree that no may be the answer, but is that not what Cheney and the boys just did for 8 years? With a populist 51%…maybe. Why do you not pose the same questions about what the last administration did? Can someone please be objective around here?
After 8 years of Bush are we not supposed to question the current administration as they embark upon uncharted waters?
Do we have to ask the question …….but Bush……But Bush…….Bush is gone and the world is going to hell fast. We dont have time to……But Bush……We need to make the RIGHT moves now.
Questions are important to keep the government on their toes….not rubber stamp a process because the government is popular at this point in time.