You are here:   Dialogue > Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt?
 

SB: But I want to step back a bit. If you stop somebody in this street, which is supposedly dedicated to free markets, and ask them what economists do, they will say, "They forecast, and they forecast badly." Most of the great economists never made a macro-economic forecast in their lives, and Hayek said that all economists can teach us are principles. Now most people are too impatient for that. They sneer at economic forecasts and yet they want a magic crystal ball, and they can't have it. But the great majority of economists are not pronouncing or failing to pronounce on the good life. A useful economist would be one who could do a better job of the [London] congestion charge than the former mayor Ken Livingstone did. Keynes said that one day economists should be humble, useful people like dentists. Now no one fitted this description less than Keynes himself, but, if you look at what useful economists do, they are things like that. Economists can't tell us about the good life but they ought to be able to tell us about means and ends. Where we might differ is that I would take a utilitarian view of the good life, and by that I don't mean that you can calculate bits of happiness. In the end, I think it is human welfare that matters. The early utilitarians thought that you might eventually be able to measure human welfare in terms of a cat. If a cat is purring then it is happy, and I think that Jeremy Bentham approached social policy in that way.

DJ: What do we think is the most important moral question, or moral insight, that has emerged from our present crisis? Many people, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, have jumped to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be replaced, or at the very least requires radical surgery, because there's something terribly wrong with it. But is that the right sort of moral conclusion to draw? Or if not, what is?

SB: I don't think the Archbishop, who is a great scholar in some ways, has the faintest idea of what should replace the market system.

EH: Hear, hear!

SB: But what is more, if he became the economic adviser to the next government, we really would have a depression. And all the authoritarian conservative instincts will say, "behave", "discipline", "spend less", "tighten your belt", and if they're reinforced by some awful Archbishop, we really would get a depression, and no amount of sermonising would get us out of it.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Postkey
November 17th, 2011
8:11 AM
"The inflationary boom thus leads to distortions of the pricing and production system. Prices of labor and raw materials in the capital goods industries had been bid up during the boom too high to be profitable once the consumers reassert their old consumption/investment preferences." http://mises.org/daily/3127 However: "The period prior to the crisis was the most stable economic environment for generations. And, unlike most previous recessions, this crisis wasn’t preceded by an unsustainable boom in output. In the five years leading up to the crisis, overall GDP growth remained close to its long-run average and inflation differed from the 2% target on average by only 0.2 percentage points." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/18/bank-of-england-mervyn-ki...

Josie Nguyen
December 15th, 2009
5:12 PM
Why is it that people always want to blame anything and everything such as 'the government' or 'the market' when in fact it is their own individual failure that causes harm to society. Greed is distinctly individual, not caused by the market or by the government. Government in a democratic society must respond to their electorate's stupid demands (such as easy credit to flip houses) based on individual greed. If there are enough stupid people among the electorate, they will form a majority that pressures government to act. Governments simply act democratically by responding to the majority pressure. Markets simply act to respond to the majority demand. Let's stop wasting our time finding faults with the market or the government. People, individually, are responsible for the current crisis, crises in the past and more crises to come.

Riaz Ahmad
December 27th, 2008
9:12 PM
It is rather strange that only since the international financial system went in to a free fall, hurting the western economies, the moral aspects of capitalism are being questioned. When it happened in East Asia, no one battered an eye lid in the west. Capitalism has been robbing the poor of the third world for centuries, no one in the west felt any need to question its morality. As usual, hypocrisy lurks in every nook and corner of west's dealings with the rest.

Anonymous
November 24th, 2008
1:11 PM
Nobody is interested in filling my pockets with money. Or yours. The transactions that have brought about the financial 'crisis' have been made by people hoping to make a profit. Pie in the sky economics, balloons that will pop; and all on a 'global' scale. There have been many warnings but to no avail, and while bitter medicine is being prescribed the conmen continue to prosper -- if you are silly enough to listen.

Escott
November 11th, 2008
4:11 PM
I would urge readers to read this essay by Rothbard http://mises.org/story/3127 which is timeless and the lessons of which we would do well to heed. It is worth noting for those who listen to Sir Brittan's comments that there is nothing free market about the pound, or interest rates, or fractional reserve banking... these are all creatures of the state and the interested observer will notice they happen to be all intricately involved with the current crisis. We do not have a czar fixing the price of oil or bread yet we seem to think it reasonable that we have a central bank fixing interest rates. We do not find it strange that our currency is backed by literally nothing, an experiment that has NEVER endured in history and has so far only been running since 1971 in which time, unsurprisingly to any follower of the Austrian school, levels of debt have exploded to unprecedented levels on nearly every relative measure one can think of. Fractional reserve banking in a private money world would have limited the expansion of credit but in a state backed, incompetently regulated order, we have seen former lions such as RBS end up with assets of 93 times its tangible equity at the end of 2007. (!) None of these features are a result of the free market and it is apodictically incorrect to blame it, the market responds to the institutional framework within which it works. In this case, infinitely elastic credit. Without fiat money and a fractional reserve banking system backed by central bank determined rates and implicit government guarantees of the banking system, we could not be in this mess in the first place.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.