Thread by @oren_cass, [Thread.] With @marcorubio and @HawleyMO daring to question how well our markets [...]

[Thread.] With @marcorubio and @HawleyMO daring to question how well our markets are serving our society, and what we might do to improve matters, troops are tripping over themselves, and each other, as they charge onto the ramparts in defense of... well, I'm not sure actually.

Kevin Williamson insists that "the very model of capitalism [Rubio et al] so intensely disdain" is the source of our prosperity.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/marco-rubio-elizabeth-warren-capitalism-common-good-argument/

But @jonahdispatch's "frustration stems from the fact that we 'fetter' the market constantly." https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/economic-policy-unfettered-capitalism-does-not-exist-in-united-states/

Opponents of ‘Unfettered Capitalism’ Are Fighting a Phantom

We put plenty of restraints on economic activity. What we don’t need is unfettered government.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/marco-rubio-elizabeth-warren-capitalism-common-good-argument/

While @davidharsanyi credits "economic freedom" for "a work force [] richer, healthier, and safer today,"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/marco-rubios-bizarre-turn-against-capitalism/

@davidafrench explains "to track the last century ... is to track the extraordinary growth of government intervention." https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/nationalist-is-how-a-republican-spells

‘Nationalist’ Is How a Republican Spells ‘Progressive.”

There’s not much to say about the Democratic debate Wednesday. Nothing happened to transform the race. Joe Biden’s inevitable gaffe was perhaps more cringe-inducing than normal, and Elizabeth...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/marco-rubios-bizarre-turn-against-capitalism/

These views are not entirely unreconcilable -- it could be the case that all the liberty and economic freedom yielded the good stuff and all the fettering and intervention held us back, and in a counterfactual world of all liberty-focused policy we'd be better off.

But you'd have to do a lot of work to make that argument. Does anyone think medical breakthroughs would have happened faster if only the government had butted out of steering investment toward them? Or that working conditions would be better but-for the labor movement?

Any takers for "without that whole public education thing, people would have really buckled down and invested more in their own preparation for the workforce"? What about "the freest market is the one most integrated with and distorted by a communist, authoritarian one"?

Speaking for myself, I think we overregulate in some places (e.g., environment), trust the market too much in others (e.g., trade), allocate resources perversely (e.g., education), and have bad laws whose reform is frustrated by powerful interests (e.g., labor).

But in all these areas we do in fact need government to act, which means there is no alternative to grappling publicly with what we want to achieve as a society and what affirmative policies might best advance those goals. (We may even want policy experts to participate.)

Likewise, with remarkable consistency, assaults on "common-good capitalism" refuse to disavow intervention.

Harsanyi: "We can't ignore [displaced workers], and there is nothing wrong with the state figuring out ways to ease that transition."

Williamson: "The federal gov't exists to provide public goods that are necessarily national in scope."

French: "Without violating [Americans'] liberties, it should enact policies designed to advance the common good."

Goldberg: "I’m not an advocate for unfettered capitalism."

Gosh, seems like we'll need some policymakers willing to figure out what we mean by common good, how best to fetter capitalism, and so on. Well, if any should come along, at least we know they'll get the fair hearing they deserve... unlike these knaves, Rubio and Hawley. End.

Latest Threads Unrolled: