Broadly speaking, I think that there are three families of arguments that can be made in defense of markets. Most commonly within the legal academy markets are defended on the basis of efficiency….

The second defense of markets is libertarian. This looks a lot of like the efficiency argument but is actually quite different, notwithstanding the fact that libertarians frequently confuse the two. In the libertarian argument what matters is not welfare but freedom. Freedom is taken as a good in and of itself, even if choices might result in reductions of welfare for the chooser….

The third argument is a defense of markets as markets.

Both the efficiency and the libertarian defenses of markets are reductionist in the sense that they see the good of markets in a unitary way. Markets are good because — properly constructed — they move resources around to maximize welfare….

Markets are good because they provide cooperation in the face of disagreement over the definition of the good and “social stability.”…

It’s a very decent article, though as a non-card carrying libertarian, I need to disagree with some of his minor points.  Namely, that libertarians are by group interested in freedom alone.  In fact, libertarians, just like other demographic groups get to the same answers through different paths and all three paths are prevalent in the current party.

For some libertarians, it is an…. intellectual/efficiency argument alone.  They believe markets aren’t necessarily moral or perfect at rationing, but they firmly believe that a free market leads to the best possible solution for the most people.

For me, I take the freedom approach.  To maximize individual welfare means one must maximize individual choices.  This might seem as too moralistic or philosophical for some as to be practical or useful, but it seems logical that reducing one mans’ freedom is antithetical to maximizing welfare.

& to be thoroughish, lots of libertarians are just tired of all the other parties and joined that cool one with that goofy, “Who is Ron Paul” stuff.  In reality, like most organizations, libertarians are not absolutists either way using a combination of thoughts to form their basis for their beliefs, but I digress.

On this view, traders are not cowardly, greedy, souless parasites (see, e.g., Shylock) constantly tempting the virtuous away from the path of justice with filthy lucre. Rather, commerce encourages courage, honesty, and fidelity. It encourages cooperation rather than predation. It allows people with widely disparate views of the ultimate ends and purposes of life to peacefully cooperate with one another. Commerce rewards the frugal and the farsighted, while punishing the wastrel and the spendthrift…..

The third, pluralist view of the good of markets gets scant attention…

If we can start with the idea that maximizing welfare includes maximizing freedom, efficiency, freedom, & moral markets work together.

When starting with the paramount of freedom in economics, one also gets into the land of (un)intended consequences and perverted incentives.  Hayek talked about this a great deal – the fact that due to the shear size and complexity of the market, any attempted centralized interference will change incentives and unlikely for the better.  Unlikely, because the “status quo” we all question exists through millions and millions of individual transactions.

For lack of a better term, a collective wisdom emerges, order out of chaos.  An answer, that we might not like, but something for which a centralized system is (highly) unlikely to do better than free individuals.  The result is the most efficient use of resources we can hope to achieve while maintaining the most individual freedoms we can.

What about the morals? Well….it’s not as if we don’t have recent examples to help us out.  Leaving out the current mess of a tax code, take the recent financial crisis.

Predatory lenders?  Sure.  Fraudulent and speculative borrowers? Sure.  The reason why it worked so well?  Government incentives pushed quasi-government agencies to purchase loans without much oversight.

Why no oversight?  No skin in the game.  They couldn’t fail.  The market believed it & they believed it.  & in the end, the government proved them right.  Do the wrong thing, over and over and over and over again until it finally collapses and someone else ends up paying the bill….

& with upcoming elections, for which Democrats currently seem to be in some trouble (polling data here via RealClearPolitics), they will continue this regardless of any true facts which show the opposite.  This week, with some gall, they plan to use the auto show in Detroit (here via Policito):

When the president travels to Michigan on Friday, he’ll tout the revival of General Motors and Chrysler since the auto companies received billions in federal aid and government-assisted bankruptcies….

I say with gall, because they fully intend to tout even more success with blown money when the only major car company to NOT take bail out money is doing better than their rivals (here via Star-Tribune):

DEARBORN, Mich. – Four years ago, Ford mortgaged everything down to the blue oval logo to save itself. Now, even as Americans remain skittish about the economy, it’s reaping big rewards and stealing business from stumbling rivals.

Ford said Friday that it made $2.6 billion from April through June, its fifth straight quarterly profit. The company, which reported record losses in 2008, now predicts it will end 2011 with more cash than debt.

With its two longtime Detroit rivals still finding their way after spending time in bankruptcy last year, Ford, which never took government bailout money, extended its success story…..

Yep, instead of using this time to stand up for the ingenuity, the self reliance, the perseverance of private individuals working without taking tax money, they will use this to tell us all how much better off we are than if they hadn’t.

Oh… and in case you might be one of those people who know about Ford’s success, they have an answer for that as well (here via Detroit News):

Washington — The Senate’s top Democrat argued Ford Motor Co. probably would have collapsed if the government hadn’t bailed out its top two competitors….

So there you have it, even with logical evidence to the contrary, not only did the all knowing government help out two companies that are still barely surviving, but also completely fixed a company for which they contributed nothing directly.

Well, the verdict is in.

Please make no mistake about it, this marketing push isn’t really about obstruction, but about the upcoming elections.  Just as President Clinton did brilliantly prior the 1996 elections when he cast all Republicans as following Newt Gingrich and obstructing spending laws, the Obama administration is moving forward in much the same pattern.

This is possible because the White House, regardless of occupant, has historically been able to control the news cycle.  In my opinion, this should be an indictment on journalism as a whole when alternatives which exist aren’t being reported, but simply put:  when the President talks, news happens.  When your normal representative talks, you’re lucky if you even hear about it.

It worked during the Clinton Administration on spending, it worked during the Bush (43) Administration on the Patriot Act, & it certainly might work again this time. Irregardless, the campaign is back and in high gear (here via USA Today):

…”Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress,” Obama said. “And that has very real consequences.”…

Or here via NY Times blog, here via WaPo, & on and on and on…

From a critical point of view however, obstructionist should not automatically be a pejorative.   Without analyzing what exactly is being obstructed, this is little more than name calling.

As an example, if say in the 1940s Congress was actively trying to “obstruct” the intermittent of thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans, this would not only be a moral good, but any thoughts to compromise solely to be seen as a non-obstructionist would be wrong.  What would be a compromised alternative?  House arrest?

Additionally, we have to be on the lookout for the differences between the marketing of bills and their actual language.  Think of the new health care legislation.  President Obama’s promises of more health care for all at cheaper prices, simply don’t seem to be fulfilled by the 2500 page law passed… or maybe they are being fulfilled, but like the Patriot Act, no one really knows what the new legislation actually means (here via Cato):

…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care.

The length and complexity of the legislation, combined with a debate that often generated more heat than light, has led to massive confusion about the law’s likely impact….

Or on yesterday’s Meet The Press Rep. Van Hollen stated (transcripts here via MSNBC):

…The frustration is there are lots of important bills to push for jobs that are sitting over in the Senate.  But it’s not the fault of the Democratic leadership in the Senate.  I mean, frankly, you know, John Cornyn and his allies have been trying to block a whole lot of very important jobs measures.  We in fact sent a piece of legislation over very recently that would remove these perverse tax incentives to ship American jobs overseas, that give American corporations a bonus if they ship American jobs overseas….

Just like health care, the basic idea that our representatives are working on private job creation incentives is a good one.  But just like the Obama Administration’s promises on health care, Rep. Van Hollen is selling us a job creation bill which has little chance of actually creating jobs.

To translate – what they mean by “removing incentives” is to increase taxes on businesses who outsource.  Now, some may want this to happen for various reasons, but the economics are pretty straight forward.  Tax increases have never increased jobs & forcing a tax such as this could actually result in companies simply moving their head quarters as well.

To be fair, there are bills I don’t believe the Republicans should block, for instance the extension on unemployment benefits (though it seems likely to pass soon: here via The Hill).

Yes, the point isn’t that the Republicans are doing the right thing and the Democrats are failing at every single step, the point is only intended to remind us of the old saying about representative governance:

The people will get the government they deserve.

& so long as we allow marketing campaigns to have more force in elections than critical analysis does, we will likely continue to be disappointed.

…In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina…

While the true impact of the 2010 midterm elections is still ultimately up to a vote which hasn’t happened, the signs seem to all be pointing to good news based upon selectorate theory (DA post here):

..the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ration between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S,the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is….

…The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public….

The basic idea is that the leader will use their power to pay back those who helped them get elected and the larger that coalition is, the less likely that money can come in the form of direct payoffs.

Now theoretically, in a free election system, W is 1/2 of S + 1.  IE – in order to get elected I need 50% of the votes plus one.

What happens however, if the voters through their actions artificially limit W?

How can they you ask?  Easily actually.

Every 10 years post census, each state will redraw district boundary lines based upon population numbers.  The problem is this “redrawing” isn’t done based on some objective science or even just basic math, but based on politics.  The way it currently works is the party in power redraws the districts.

Typically, the only ones who argue against these plans are the parties out of power.  Historically, the minority party would go to court, but courts have answered these challenges by stating that unless specific acts of discrimination or such can be proven, political redistricting is not something the court will actively change.

The reasoning is that voters have recourse already so the court is not necessary.  Their recourse is to elect those who redraw the district boundaries.

Now in states that change majority party from time to time, there are incentives for politicians to not gerymander individual districts too bad, least they be on the receiving end next time.

However, in states like CA or TX, where one party dominates, there are no incentives for the party in power to do anything but draw district boundaries in such a way as to ensure they can maintain power.

This is how we end up with politicians like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, who win their individual districts in landslide elections, but whose national approval rating is slightly higher than the IQ of a prune.

This is also the reason (here) “polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.”

But his only works through voter ignorance.  The reality is voters are free to vote for whom they want.  Just because a district is redrawn to include mostly Democrat supporters, doesn’t mean those voters must vote for the Democrat.

We know the truth however for many voters is party loyalty and party identification are much stronger forces in their life than political analysis.

There are reasons for this as well, including the sheer complexity of the government itself.  This level of complexity means for a voter to be truly informed, a good deal of time is needed to sort through the information.  Time most people would rather spend with their families after work.  But I digress…. (read more about The Myth of the Rational Voter here via Cato)

The point is that while voters don’t have to vote party loyalty, the evidence is very strong to suggest they do.

Therefore - back to W/S as a ratio – if voters allow a district to always put a Democrat (or Republican) in that seat, they are effectively making the general election a formality whereas the real election is during the primaries.

This combined with the facts that primary voters represent a very small percentage of total voters & primary voters tend to be true believers, results is an artificial reduction of W in our ratio of W/S, ultimately reducing voter power.

While I tend to stay away from any predictions, the current trending of certain national Senate and Congressional races is showing a promising sign of reversing this trend for at least one election cycle.

Of course for now, these are only polls.  They only tell us what people think during a given time period and nothing more.  The true test for voters will be on election day:

Will voters stand up against incumbents?  Or will they do what they’ve done for the past couple of decades; complain about the worthless government while simultaneously voting to keep the same government?

Well, some of you may have missed it, others like Mr. Gasparino is all over it.  What might he be writing about?  AIG testimony?  Goldman Sachs testimony?

No, he’s more concerned with one missing actor in this drama, JP Morgan.  While writing for the Huffington Post, Mr. Gasparino explains to us (here):

Of all the events that led up the great financial collapse of 2008, in my mind, one truly stands out: The decision by super-bank JP Morgan to demand billions of dollars in collateral from the troubled Lehman Brothers in mid-September of that year….

Now… if you want to talk about some laser like focus, this is truly amazing.  Mr. Gasparino doesn’t remember anything about houses going up in value for double digits for a decade?  Doesn’t remember Fannie & Freddie with strong political help encouraging this?  Doesn’t remember all those warnings about just these things?

No, he tells us, the real villain here, is JP Morgan:

…The move, according to senior Wall Street executives, was akin to a death knell for the firm, which was just about on life support already. JP Morgan demanded some $8 billion, it said, for clients that traded with Lehman….

Because….

….Once word went out that JP Morgan was nervous about Lehman’s ability to survive, a bank run ensued. Lenders pulled lines of credit; Lehman couldn’t trade with its counter-parties. In less than a week, Lehman had declared bankruptcy and the entire financial system began to implode…

To translate this tripe he seems to be stating that by merely asking a company who owes you money, but can’t pay and then goes bankrupt because they can’t pay money they owe, is the entire reason for the financial collapse.

Oh, and least we forget… the company which borrowed all that money and couldn’t pay it back and went bankrupt – it wasn’t their fault at all – it was those greedy bastards who wanted what was rightfully theirs.