Left and Right

Here’s a question for you: do you know your left from your right, politically, economically? How about your far left from your far right? I suspect there may be some issues, terminological complications, confusion. Maybe we can discuss that a bit this week?

I suppose the most common definition of left and right must involve reference to ethical views on the definition, distribution, use of economic power to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocate resources, etc. The exact specifications of the respective views may be a little contentious but generally one is more about defined and unchangeable property laws; labor and capital market, inheritance based distribution of economic power; extensive use of markets; and the other less so. From this perspective on left and right, one can have extreme positions of either left or right involving non-democratic, authoritarian expressions of the relevant ethics on economic power, so right wing authoritarian fascism versus left wing authoritarian communism. This traditional take allows one to easily make sense of the historical deadly animosity between similarly anti-democracy, authoritarian, ostensibly (although not necessarily genuinely) “welfare state” fascism and communism in 20th century Europe especially. 

Democracy, from this perspective, is neither inherently right nor left, as voters can voice opinions on the ethics of economic power and can and will revise, amend change those opinions, evolve. Voters often support a “welfare state” stance but they needn’t and sometimes haven’t. It’s rare, but voters in a democracy sometimes support a government that evinces no care or sense of responsibility relating to the welfare or well-being of the citizenry, as in the early years of the Great Depression of the 1930s, for example. 

Under this perspective, one may say the USA currently has a very popular, powerful, influential, well-funded, far right political movement in the form of the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but no real far left movement to speak of. That is to say, one can find anti-democracy, authoritarian, violent, political rhetoric from right wing conservatives, Republicans, but no real anti-democracy, authoritarian, violent, political rhetoric from their opponents, liberals, Democrats.

However, there is another version of the left right distinction in which democracy, by casting the ethics of economic power as a matter for voters to address, is inherently leftist, and in which the far left can refer to those who strongly endorse democracy, the US Constitution. This usage appears now quite common in the USA and, as one might suppose, has created some confusion and conflict, including among conservatives, Republicans, about the proposed status of democracy and the US Constitution. 

An entirely different take on what puts the “far” into far right and far left is that it is meant simply to indicate relative position from some central position, so as the overall political climate shifts right, “far left” refers to what was formerly the moderate left. In this instance, it’s not the ability of democracy to sustain consideration of the ethics of economic power that makes it inherently leftist to some right wingers, it’s simply that a great many people in the USA no longer support democracy, so supporting it becomes “far left.”

What’s the point? Talk about left and right, far left and far right, all you want, just be aware different people may have in mind different things by those terms, and one may easily end up talking past others due to equivocation on terms, resulting in confusion and conflict. As always in such cases, it’s typically easier, less confusing to just spell things out. Are you talking about the ethics of economic power? Who should decide that? Democracy versus authoritarian government? Welfare state or a state indifferent to citizens’ welfare? Takes a bit longer, of course, but at least people know what you’re talking about. Of course, if you’re not interested in talking sincerely, if you’re more interested in misleading, manipulative rhetoric, word games, then knock yourself out, unless your audience demands better. 

Addendum: Forgot the peculiar modern take in which all government, law, is cast as “left,” and “right" either doesn’t exist or becomes lawless, violent anarchism, conventionally neither right nor left. Comical, but likely also causes some terminological confusion and conflict.

Economics And Ethical Controversy

I was thinking the other day of the damage done to the USA not just by bad economics in the conservative style but also by the neoclassical welfare economics on which it is loosely based. Maybe this week I can wax philosophical, just a bit?

The most controversial ethics, those most likely to lead to disagreement, conflict, are likely those addressing how to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, such as over scarce resources, including via law, the very ethics exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. One might have an ethical opinion about other people’s behavior in isolation, of course, but seems relatively difficult to contrive ethically controversial cases. Apple or orange? Who cares? Person doesn’t know apple poisoned? Well, maybe. Or is it his or her business to know? But two people fighting over some scarce resource, let’s say a vaccine? That’s rather more likely to result in ethical controversy, conflict, disagreement, isn’t it? Should person A or person B have it? Why? What’s so special about A’s claim relative to B’s or vice versa? Let’s say A is sick but poor, and if we use a non-market allocation system based on medical need, A gets the vaccine. B is not sick but economically powerful, and if we enforce a market solution based on economic power (and desire), B gets the vaccine. Controversial? Maybe. Does it matter if we’re not talking about a vaccine or anything else necessary for life like food, water, shelter, whatever? How about who gets the big shelter, the one with room for a pony? Anything change? Just saying. There are some potential issues.

Neoclassical welfare economics famously punts on such issues by focusing on individual preference rankings, confusingly labeled as “utility,” which cannot be used to address or resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences. That’s what makes the theory an ethical half-theory. The ostensible rationale is to investigate what one can say without taking up controversial ethical issues, and the answer, of course, is very little indeed, because in reality we’re always faced with resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources. People can get a little confused on that point because in the Fairy Land of Economic Theory, in which such issues and such ethics are banned, neoclassical welfare economics becomes a full ethical theory, capable of sustaining certain conclusions about optimal arrangements, etc. It’s why it’s always so important when dealing with someone working with neoclassical welfare economics to determine when they’re talking about the Fairy Land of Economic Theory, where certain results and conclusions apply, and when reality, where they may not apply. Bad economics in the conservative style, as I define it, plays games in that area, tries to muddy the water, conflates the Fairy Land with reality, incorrectly applies conclusions and results to reality that fail to account for the exogenous ethics that pertain to reality.

What happens when an entire society’s thinking on economic issues, the allocation of scare resources, is based on neoclassical welfare economics and the Fairy Land of Economic Theory? Important, vital, albeit controversial ethical issues go unaddressed, undiscussed. Until one fine day someone suggests changing the definition, distribution, use of economic power (extent of the market) and hence changing the resolution of interpersonal conflicts of preferences, the allocation of resources. Then the suppressed conflict comes flooding back. Or again, what happens when an entire society’s thinking on economic issues, the allocation of scare resources, is based on bad economics in the conservative style? Important, controversial ethical issues are slipped in, undiscussed, in a confusing, opaque, misleading, way. To reduce conflict and confusion relating to the ethics of economic power, the allocation of scarce resources, we must stop trying to avoid them, sweep them under the rug. Seek to understand real neoclassical welfare economics, especially its theoretical limitations. Understand and reject bad economics in the conservative style, which tries to slyly slip in exogenous normative or ethical content through the back door. Demand honest, sincere discussion of the necessary normative or ethical inputs. Don’t settle for misleading, opaque rhetoric.

One can’t understand the role of democratic government in market-based economic systems without understanding it as a mechanism for addressing and temporarily, contingently, resolving via law, regulation, policy, potential controversial ethical issues relating to economic power. One can’t understand the ethos of democracy without considering the fundamental basis of ethics, private versus social ethics, the role of voters, and the importance of debatable, changeable social ethics respecting the majority will for creating a stable, peaceful society. To stem the rise of anti-democracy, fascist sentiment in the USA, we must address the sickly and unhelpful legacy of bad economics in the conservative style; we must explain neoclassical welfare economics correctly, including its limitations, its ethical half-theory structure. To stem the tide of violent political extremism, we must learn to discuss the ethics of the definition of economic power (property), distribution of economic power, use of economic power (extent of the market) sensibly, calmly, rationally, agree a mechanism to debate, address.

Two Levels of Bad Economics

I overheard someone talking about something called “free market economics” and it made me think of the two levels at which that phrase may relate to anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, so I thought I might discuss that this week. I may have suggested before I have a particular interest in what I call “level problems,” where the same idea, concern, issue can arise in two or more places or levels of some broader theory. Seems always to create great potential for confusion and conflict.

One level at which the phrase “free market economics” may relate to bad economics in the conservative style is that a “free market" is not a thing in neoclassical welfare economics, it’s undefined in that theory, so if one implies otherwise, well, that’s bad economics. What is a “free market,” I wonder. A “perfectly competitive” market with the particular unreal conditions specified in neoclassical welfare economics? Any old market structure? A market with so-called “market failures?” A monopoly? Oligopoly? Who knows? Who cares? Bad economics.

I suppose I should say, as “free” may seem to convey normative or ethical content, it’s not my intention right now to object to any ethical theory that claims some particular instance of a market laudable because “free” under some definition. Only, it’s not economics. And as always with what I call bad economics, “bad” is not meant to imply normative content I might not evaluate particularly highly myself, but a lack of clarity, sincerity, a failure to lay out one’s normative or ethical case for evaluation and debate in an honest way. So a “free market economics” that doesn't pretend to be neoclassical welfare economics, that includes an ethical theory defining the sense of “free” being invoked, helps readers evaluate it normatively, relates it to some or all real market structures, is not “bad,” per se. In my experience, that sort of honest explication of some sort of unusual economics / ethics blend called “free market economics” is rare. What seems much more common are underhanded attempts to imply such a theory can be derived from neoclassical welfare economics.

However, there is another level at which bad economics in the conservative style meets “free market economics,” and that is at a rather more advanced level, when one mentally replaces “free” with “perfectly competitive” and confines oneself to neoclassical welfare economics. Bad economics in the conservative style at that second level involves a misunderstanding of the normative limitations of neoclassical welfare economics, the ethical half-theory structure, and the relation of reality to the Fairy Land of Economic Theory. This is the level of bad economics in the conservative style one tends to hear from those with a modicum of training in economics, and sometimes from those with quite a lot of training.

Conflation between the two levels creates a great deal of confusion and conflict. Those with some knowledge of economics may assume bad economics in the conservative style refers only to lower level issues associated with simplistic “free market economics” and be dismissive or take umbrage at the notion they’re engaging in such nonsense themselves. Indeed, their tendency will be to confront bad economics by trying to explain issues endogenous to neoclassical welfare economics, confining themselves to explaining what the theory says. But that only works for the lower level sort of bad economics, not the higher sort. Addressing higher level bad economics in the conservative style involves a broader context, an assessment of the normative argument in neoclassical welfare economics and how it relates to reality, the limitations of “utility,” the role of exogenous ethics, etc.

“Free market economics” can be bad economics in the conservative style in two entirely different ways, corresponding to the two levels at which bad economics in the conservative style can go off the rails. Don't get them twisted. They can both cause confusion and conflict.