What's so funny about Free Market Economics?
I few years ago I stumbled on a book by Frederich Von Hyack called, "THE ROAD TO SERFDOM". Normally you would not consider this serendipitous, but since conservatives have lionized him and his cousin, this book led to the idea to write the following:
Some years ago, Dylan Rattigan who had a program on MSNBC, had a guest who billed himself as a stand-up economist. He was a young man with a PhD in economics who tried to put a humorous spin on what academics call, The Dismal Science. I have not seen him on TV since but he can be found on YouTube.
I'm an optimist. I believe that since people find a "spit take"funny, or slipping on a banana peel, there must be humor in economics somewhere. One definition of humor is something that comforts the oppressed and oppressed the comfortable. That, then is the logical place to start: nothing oppresses people more than the lack of money and power, which are inextricably linked. Moreover, no one is more unlikable to those without money and and power than those who are too possessive of money and power. The worst of these are the Free-Marketers, the Austrian Free-Marketers, the Neo-Liberal economists, or the Libertarians. Which reminds me, what is the difference between Libertarians and Civil Libertarians? Were civil.
A little history is in order. The founders of Free-Market economics, which before then was known as laissez-faire economics, were two cousins. After WWI they went around the coffee shops of Salzburfg Austria lecturing on Free-Matkets. Their names were Ludwig Von Mises and Frederich Von Hyack. Von Hyack self-published a book titled, The Road to Serfdom, a small exaggeration. Serfdom had ended in Europe by around the 12th Century, CE. Before that serfs were born to the land that was owned by the aristocrat; there was no road out, save death, and no road in. The petty aristocrat, who owed their allegiance, and the title to their estates, to the monarch, collected all but a small portion of the serfs produce as his due. What was left was expected to feed the families of the serfs. What freed the serfs from sefvitude? Funny you should ask, the Black Plague. Bubonic plague was very small d democratic. It killed serfs, tradesmen, and aristocrats alike. By the end of its run, one-third of the people of Europe were dead. This left manor houses and estates untended. Those serfs who had the magic gene of survival continued to farm the estates and tend the herds. Since the aristocrats had died, or fled, the serfs were able to keep a larger share of their produce for themselves, which gave them more resources to barter with. Eventually, the children of grain farmers would become millers, or bakers, or brewers. Cattle-herders would become butchers, or cheese makers, or tanners. New markets blossomed, and in time this led to the craftsmen uniting into guilds to bargain for concessions from the king. The aristocrats gave up some of their control, but not their status.
Von Hyack is guilty here of using the usual conservative tactic of hyperbole-wildly overstating an issue in order to frighten the weak-minded. The aristocracy was never in danger of serfdom, or even being commoners. Those aristocrats who survived the Plague used their wealth to trade in luxury goods, which could be afforded by more people. In time they purchased, or sponsored ships which helped open new markets and discover new lands. If their investments failed, or their gambling debts mounted, they could still "marry up". Some aristocrats became leaders of armies for hire, or "free-booters". Von Hyack and Von Mises, by the use of the honorific, von, were members of the Austro-Hungerian aristocracy. This increased wealth, which elevated the lower classes, led to the Rennaisance, which broadened interests in science and the arts. Moveable type made the printed word available to more people, which made the ability to read more common. This threatened the aristocracy of the church, who were accustomed to dispensing Biblical wisdom from the pulpit. Trade groups, like the Lollards, in England, taught each other to read, which lead to repression from the church., and the Reformation was born. This in turn led to writers, playwrites, critics, and humorists, even failed humorists.
The wealth of the medieval era was sequestered, which provided little comfort outside the great families, and the brothels and money-lenders they frequented. As wealth became more broadly held it generated more wealth, thus economics was born. All great inventions, all great art, all great creations, came from the emerging middle-class. The greatest gift of this emerging middle-class was representative democracy: the right of the citizenry to elect their officials. This in turn created a rich vein of humor that could now be mined.
I'm an optimist. I believe that since people find a "spit take"funny, or slipping on a banana peel, there must be humor in economics somewhere. One definition of humor is something that comforts the oppressed and oppressed the comfortable. That, then is the logical place to start: nothing oppresses people more than the lack of money and power, which are inextricably linked. Moreover, no one is more unlikable to those without money and and power than those who are too possessive of money and power. The worst of these are the Free-Marketers, the Austrian Free-Marketers, the Neo-Liberal economists, or the Libertarians. Which reminds me, what is the difference between Libertarians and Civil Libertarians? Were civil.
A little history is in order. The founders of Free-Market economics, which before then was known as laissez-faire economics, were two cousins. After WWI they went around the coffee shops of Salzburfg Austria lecturing on Free-Matkets. Their names were Ludwig Von Mises and Frederich Von Hyack. Von Hyack self-published a book titled, The Road to Serfdom, a small exaggeration. Serfdom had ended in Europe by around the 12th Century, CE. Before that serfs were born to the land that was owned by the aristocrat; there was no road out, save death, and no road in. The petty aristocrat, who owed their allegiance, and the title to their estates, to the monarch, collected all but a small portion of the serfs produce as his due. What was left was expected to feed the families of the serfs. What freed the serfs from sefvitude? Funny you should ask, the Black Plague. Bubonic plague was very small d democratic. It killed serfs, tradesmen, and aristocrats alike. By the end of its run, one-third of the people of Europe were dead. This left manor houses and estates untended. Those serfs who had the magic gene of survival continued to farm the estates and tend the herds. Since the aristocrats had died, or fled, the serfs were able to keep a larger share of their produce for themselves, which gave them more resources to barter with. Eventually, the children of grain farmers would become millers, or bakers, or brewers. Cattle-herders would become butchers, or cheese makers, or tanners. New markets blossomed, and in time this led to the craftsmen uniting into guilds to bargain for concessions from the king. The aristocrats gave up some of their control, but not their status.
Von Hyack is guilty here of using the usual conservative tactic of hyperbole-wildly overstating an issue in order to frighten the weak-minded. The aristocracy was never in danger of serfdom, or even being commoners. Those aristocrats who survived the Plague used their wealth to trade in luxury goods, which could be afforded by more people. In time they purchased, or sponsored ships which helped open new markets and discover new lands. If their investments failed, or their gambling debts mounted, they could still "marry up". Some aristocrats became leaders of armies for hire, or "free-booters". Von Hyack and Von Mises, by the use of the honorific, von, were members of the Austro-Hungerian aristocracy. This increased wealth, which elevated the lower classes, led to the Rennaisance, which broadened interests in science and the arts. Moveable type made the printed word available to more people, which made the ability to read more common. This threatened the aristocracy of the church, who were accustomed to dispensing Biblical wisdom from the pulpit. Trade groups, like the Lollards, in England, taught each other to read, which lead to repression from the church., and the Reformation was born. This in turn led to writers, playwrites, critics, and humorists, even failed humorists.
The wealth of the medieval era was sequestered, which provided little comfort outside the great families, and the brothels and money-lenders they frequented. As wealth became more broadly held it generated more wealth, thus economics was born. All great inventions, all great art, all great creations, came from the emerging middle-class. The greatest gift of this emerging middle-class was representative democracy: the right of the citizenry to elect their officials. This in turn created a rich vein of humor that could now be mined.
Comments
Post a Comment