Don't Bite the Invisible Hand That Feeds You
Supporting regulation is one thing, but being anti-market is foolish
Matt Harrison

The anti-capitalist is a curious breed. They take a variety of different positions, but all share one common theme: the general belief that the market is an inherently evil force. They pass along such canards as "The free market doesn't work," "Capitalism is the exploitation of the worker," and "There is no such thing as the American Dream," among many others. They are often found writing for outlets such as The Nation and Harpers, as well as self-righteously demonstrating against free trade agreements and French labor proposals, inter alia.

Their position is wholly unconstructive. By their ideological hatred, these anti-market characters should be distinguished from all of those who simply wish to regulate certain aspects of the market to improve its otherwise beneficial performance. Many moderate conservatives or libertarians, such as this organization, are pro-market but still support various regulation and spending policies. And many leftists, such as the original German Social Democrats, seek regulation and intevention, but still view the market as a generally positive force.

The anti-capitalists, however, have little or no such appreciation of the market. They instead focus on the market's harmful effects as their predominant theme. Naomi Klein, one of their most popular literary agitators, cites thousands of cases of disingenuous business behavior in her sundry anti-market tomes. All she proves in the end, though, is the well-known reality that humans are fallible creatures who have the capability of acting immorally and unethically.

But her argument does nothing to successfully indict capitalism, any more than the millenia of recorded history showing kings, rulers, politicians and other powerful figures slaughtering, enslaving, and defrauding millions does indict the idea of a government ruling a country. The anti-market position is steeped in illogic. Businessmen violate their moral and legal obligations just like politicians do. If we were to be logically consistent in our aversion of human malice, we would have to do away with not only capitalism, but government as well.

Anarchy notwithstanding, the rational citizen is not anti-state any more than he is anti-capitalism. He only finds specific faults in each and attempts to rectify them. He knows without the government he would be living a fearful life in an anarchic state of nature, and that without the market he would be living a destitute life in an miserable state of abject poverty.

The question of whether the free market generally benefits society is obviously answered in the affirmative. It is mostly on the level of questions such as whether grass is generally green or a bear generally defecates in his native forest.

As you read this, you are reading off of a personal computer, a capitalist innovation that has transformed the world's sharing and dispensation of information. You are likely sitting in a house or office with consistent power, air conditioning, quality building materials, and a variety of other conveniences, all exclusively offered by greedy, profit-seeking companies. You will eat your lunch at one of a nearly limitless number of small-business restaurants, or will make food that you have conveniently purchased at a corporate grocery store offering an endless array of choices. Either way, you'll do it cheaply - free trade, mortal enemy of the anti-capitalist, has kindly cut the relative cost of food by two-thirds since 1957.

Per capita GDP, for another example, had been nearly constant at about $400, since about 1 million B.C. By 1850, the world had managed to barely raise it to only about $700. Then came along the Great Satan, free-market capitalism, and it exploded. By the year 2000, global per capita GDP was over $6,000.

Even the have-nots benefit from this sustained economic growth. Worldwide poverty has fallen more in the past 50 years, the much-maligned golden years of globalization and Multinational Corporate Exploitation, than in the previous 500 years of human history. As John F. Kennedy once put it, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Here's an example that hits home. In 1900, an American housewife spent an average of seven hours a week doing laundry. In 2006, she has a washing machine from Big Laundry that lets her spend only about 30 seconds doing the exact same task, freeing up time to break glass ceilings. Gee, doesn't the market make life miserable? Down with capitalism, comrade!

The anti-capitalist position is clearly worthless. But the market will still always have its flaws. Many people are rightly concerned about unscrupulous business exploitation of regulatory loopholes, environmentally-damaging malfeasance, and hypercommercialization. But more moderate critics of the market have intelligently proposed constructive regulatory policies while still recognizing the market as the superior economic system.

The free market is not anarcho-capitalism. It is not absolutely free in the sense of being devoid from regulation any more than free speech is devoid of any legal restriction. Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously remarked that even the most resolute protection of free speech would still not permit a man to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Likewise, the most resolute promotion of the free market should not permit a business to defraud a crowded theater, either.

Unfortunately, the anti-capitalists are gaining traction, and the West is beginning to turn its back on the very market that gave them the commodious and productive lifestyle it enjoys. The West was recently asked if it thought the free market was the best system available. 71% of Americans correctly thought so, as did 66% of the British. Only 55% of the Italians do, though, and only 36% of the French are so aware.

Being reflexively opposed to the market is a foolish position incompatible with the facts of human history, and completely unnecessary to alleviate the market's sporadic flaws. The anti-capitalists, ever great in number and cacophonous in rhetoric, simply don't get it. It is never wise to bite the Invisible Hand that feeds you.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed