| Source: Continuous Improvement Associates http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/libhyp.shtml Politics
Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy This review addresses these issues: *** Particularly egregious nonsense: - Nonsense #1: "When a conservative fails to live up to his ideals, it's bad for him (drug addiction, gambling); but when a Leftist fails to live up to his ideals, it's GOOD for him (a bigger home, more financial security for his family)." Now this is a great example of clever and deceptive logic. Why? Because there are two orthogonal axes of left vs. right: economic policy regarding markets and social policy regarding personal behavior. The economic policy spectrum goes from socialist to unregulated "free market." The social policy spectrum goes from libertarian "anything goes" to authoritarian state-regulated behavior. Note that the statement above shifts from personal behavior axis to the economic axis, comparing apples to oranges. The appropriate example is to make economic comparisons on both sides: When the conservative lives up to his ideals, it's good for him, but bad for everyone else. Conservatives call this "ideal," "economic freedom" with low regulation and taxes. But his "freedom" carries a price for everyone else because it externalizes the costs of doing business onto the public. That's redistribution of costs or, as I call it, "socialism on the cost side," which is far more prevalent than any redistribution of income. For example, the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) site estimates there's a 5-year $1.6 trillion national backlog of infrastructure projects: developers have externalized these costs onto the public to pay for the infrastructure that allows them to sell their product. Plus, each year Americans spend 8 billion hours stuck in traffic with lost productivity costs of $43 - $168B. And then there's the more obvious externality of pollution that causes economic damage, sickness, and death and public costs to clean up the mess. All of this is essentially theft. On the economic front, when the liberal lives up to his ideals, it costs him; but it's better for everyone. That's because regulation prevents pollution and associated injury and death. And impact fees internalize the costs of growth so that "the market" can actually properly value choices. On the social axis: When social conservatives live up to their ideals, there's coercion: imposing their "values" on others. When social liberals live up to their ideals, there's freedom: "live and let live." - Nonsense #2: Confusing "liberal" with the "left" Liberal is not the "left," much less the "extreme left." Socialists and communists are the far left. They believe all businesses should be nationalized, that is, owned and run by the State. No one hears this from liberals; nevertheless they're mislabeled as "leftists." Ridiculous. On the other hand, conservative, "free market" Republicans and Libertarians who now control government ARE the far right. They believe virtually all government functions should be privatized. We hear it every day from Republicans. They're even privatizing much of national defense (e.g., logistics, food service, even some security functions); and they're profiteering from it. They're true extremists. Everyone is to their left, so naturally they see liberals as the left. But the U.S. has moved so far to the right that, practically, there is no "left" left. Liberals realize for some things free markets are best and for others only government-regulated or government-run work. Liberals are the center. *** The heart of the argument: Liberals are hypocritical Examples from the book: "... the actions of such individuals would frequently be in opposition to their own set of self-held dogmas, his findings would reveal evidence of tax evasion, business agreements with previously denounced companies (a la Michael Moore's borrowing of funds from Disney to assemble `Fahrenheit 9/11'), and a departure from environmental care. We also learn that these individuals were opposed to the idea of joining labor unions, lest they would be compelled to submit the accompanying wages." And: "... a pro-union activist has personal business dealings that prevent organized labor to get a foothold, it is the laborers who are harmed." On the "rules of the game": This book essentially says that, if you think the "rules of the game" should be changed, then it's not OK to play by the current rules. If you do, then you're a hypocrite. Hardly. If current rules are that certain taxes can be avoided, but one thinks the laws should be changed, then it's not hypocritical at all to advocate changing the rules and still live by the rules in place. On individual logic vs. collective logic: Then there's the more fundamental and main problem with this book: it doesn't distinguish between "individual logic" and "collective logic." Individual logic says: "Do what's logical for me to improve my situation." Collective logic says: "Do what's logical to improve society." Both are needed. Not attending to the need for collective logic is why our society is failing on so many fronts. Now libertarians and many conservatives believe that when individuals do what's logical for themselves, it's always logical for the whole. But that belief is false. In many situations, individually logical actions are collectively irrational and we fall prey to what's known as the "Fallacy of Composition": acting as if what's true for a part is true for the whole. There are many examples where "individual logic" fails the whole: ocean fishing, farming, health insurance, offshoring, urban growth. The point is that one can advocate for creating rules of the game that support collective logic and prevent system failures. However, it's individually logical to follow individual logic because not doing so puts one at a serious disadvantage compared to others. Examples: higher labor costs, higher business costs from not polluting, less return on investment. Conservatives would love that because the liberal would be placed at a competitive disadvantage. And they'd call the liberal a "sucker," instead of a hypocrite. So individually logical decisions can be collectively insane. One can't blame the individuals for the collective failure. It's the job of government to look out for the collective. "Free market" ideology says that's not necessary, but it is. For examples of the "Fallacy of Composition" when we apply individual logic and experience collective failure of the system, see below. It's not just a matter that the system doesn't do as well as it could; it's that the system fails. Therefore, the need to do the right thing in such situations is a very serious concern indeed. Examples of the "Fallacy of Composition" when we apply individual logic and experience collective failure of the system: Sports Spectators. Individual logic: A spectator stands to improve his view. His view improves, but now he blocks the view of others. To see better, they also stand. Collective failure: Standing takes more energy, so the act of everyone standing is less efficient and no one has a better view than before. Ocean Fishing. Individual logic: A fisherman puts out more boats to increase profits. As the catch increases, additional profits fund even more boats. All fishermen logically do the same. Collective failure: As total fishing approaches the sustainable ocean capacity, capacity is eroded and the effort required per fish caught increases, which erodes profit per fish. This situation is particularly perverse because scarcity drives up prices, prompting more fishing and sending exactly the wrong signal to preserve the resource ... an extreme market failure. Farming. Individual logic: A farmer plants more land with more mechanization to increase production and income. All farmers logically do the same. Collective failure: The market for farm commodities is essentially a commons into which too much production creates too much supply, driving prices lower. The market doesn't regulate supply and demand because both supply and demand are inelastic. Demand doesn't increase with lower prices because those with money to buy food can only eat so much. Though one might think that land would be taken out of production in response to low prices, it turns out that farmers don't take land out of production: a farmer who doesn't plant only benefits others, not himself. Because no one can make a living at very low prices, farmers demand subsidies and price supports. These subsidies and supports allow farmers to expand and be more efficient to put even more commodity into the market. This drives prices even lower in a vicious downward spiral. References on farming: Health insurance. Individual logic: Some of the healthiest people to logically drop their insurance, estimating they don't need it. This is the dynamic of "adverse selection." Collective failure: This raises average costs and premiums for those remaining, which leads the healthier of those remaining to also drop out. This creates a health insurance death spiral (as we're now experiencing). Add to this that unless everyone is covered, society does not take advantage of the positive externalities of health care: that is, when you spend money on your health, I'm less likely to get sick, and, if we're working together, I'm more productive. This promotes "free-riding" … there are advantages to me for just letting you pay for your health care. Also, some of the healthy who dropped out do get sick; and the costs are passed on to the public in taxes and to businesses in increased costs. This raises premiums and accelerates the effects of adverse selection. Offshoring. Individual logic: U.S. corporations reduce costs and increase profits by taking advantage of low offshore wages in a world economy with tremendous labor supply compared to demand. If only one corporation does this, it works for that corporation. Collective failure: But this increases price competition and drives more corporations to logically use offshore labor. But when all do, none have lower costs than others and competitively, they're no better off than they were before. That's not the worst of it; the real problem is that the severe wage competition reduces U.S. wages, shrinks U.S. purchasing power, and erodes U.S. market demand. This further increases price competition in the U.S. and creates pressure for even more offshoring. As long as offshore pay is low and there's a global glut of capacity, this "reinforcing feedback" will continue to power offshoring and an exponentially increasing U.S trade deficit. So the catch is that we get less expensive goods, but U.S. purchasing power erodes, undermining the whole economy. See Jobless recovery: Another example of the fallacy of composition? See The Trade Deficit and the Fallacy of Composition Growth. Individual logic: Regions cut taxes and regulations to compete with other regions. Regions must compete for jobs because Federal Reserve policy assures there are always more people than jobs ("effective unemployment" is 9%, meaning the added value of 1 of 10 workers is zero and the added value of any one worker is zero!). Similarly, regions compete by not charging impact fees to pay for the long-term costs of growth (e.g., roads, bridges, schools, fire stations); if they do, jobs will go elsewhere. Collective failure: Regions are left with ever-increasing infrastructure backlogs (that 5-year $1.6 trillion national infrastructure backlog), an increasing burden on the public to pay for the long-term costs of growth, and people stuck in traffic. A response to my review and my comments on the response: This writer's rabid response clearly misses the purpose of my review. He expects, even demands, that I attempt to refute the facts in the book. He sees any criticism as unfair unless it addresses the facts presented.
For a time I was puzzled as to why economic conservatives would cater to social conservatives. Until I read the following quote:
- Though liberals endorse policies that promote the common good, liberal is not the socialist "left" that wants government to own and run all businesses. In fact, we can't only pay attention to just the "individual" or just the "collective." We must pay attention to both. Both those on the far right and the far left are extremists and dangerous. For more, see Explaining Liberal Principles.
- Policies that promote the good of the individual aren't sufficient; there is a need for policies that promote the common good to prevent overall system failure, which is why we need to change the "rules of the game." See The Trade Deficit and the Fallacy of Composition for an examination of trade policy that illustrates why I believe our economy, and therefore the world economy, will collapse in approximately 3 years when the trade deficit reaches 10% of GDP and the accumulated trade deficit (trade debt) reaches 100% of GDP. Conservative "free trade" policies are destroying America. Some specifics: Top of Page |
