On Markets

Well, I was wrong. Recently, I asserted that by and large Democrats don’t believe in markets. As it turns out a recent poll conducted by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce found that Americans, generally, have an overwhelming belief in markets and Democrats in particular believe in markets 2-1:

In a new poll conducted on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a majority of American voters reported they are concerned about state governments micromanaging private business in a way that could hurt taxpayers. Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters indicate they are more concerned about government micromanaging private business versus allowing business to make decisions they think are best for their customers — even if they don’t align with the personal views of the respondents (46%).

“This poll underscores the growing disconnect between the American electorate’s support for the free market and efforts by government officials to micromanage business decisions,” said U.S. Chamber Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, Neil Bradley. “The costs of greater political interference in the free market will be borne by taxpayers as these efforts increase the cost of government and reduce wages for workers.”

Naturally, that fills me with questions. What do they mean by “free markets”? What do they mean by “overreach”? How do you define “micromanage”? I think this definition of the free enterprise system from Jeffrey A. Tucker is at the Brownstone Institute is a pretty good one:

…the system of voluntary and contractual exchange of otherwise contestable and privately owned property titles that permits capital accumulation, eschews top-down planning, and defers to social processes over state planning

I suspect that both “overreach” and “micromanage” are meaningless. What is overreach to me may not be overreach to you. Same with micromanagement.

Consider the growth in government as a percentage of national GDP over time:

In 2021 that had declined to 41% and by 2023 to 37%. I would suggest that for “believing in markets” to mean anything you must believe in an absolute limit to the percent of GDP represented by government at all levels.

Now consider these recent quotes from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy:

… policymakers should bolster support for child care financial assistance programs such as child care subsidies and child income tax credits; universal preschool; early childhood education programs such as Early Head Start and Head Start; programs that help nurture healthy family dynamics such as early childhood home visiting programs funded by the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program; and services and support for family caregivers like Healthy Start Programs and the Lifespan Respite Care Program.

and

Establish a national paid family and medical leave program and ensure all workers have paid sick time… Invest in social infrastructure at the local level to bring parents and caregivers together…
Address the economic and social barriers that contribute to the disproportionate impact of mental health conditions for certain parents and caregivers. Priorities should encompass poverty reduction, prevention of adverse childhood experiences, access to affordable neighborhood safety, and improving access to healthy food and affordable housing. Policymakers should also prioritize programs that support eligible households in gaining access to crucial services and supports, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits, child care support, and home visits, among others…

My primary objection to the progressivism which in its present form includes a majority of Democrats is that it is not self-limiting.

That’s my challenge to the progressive Democratic leadership: how much should the government spend? What are the limits?

3 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    No one believes in absolutely free markets except for a small percentage of the anarchy-capitalists. Most of them believe that there are times when it is OK or good if government is involved, especially in protecting property rights. Conversely, only a tiny percentage of Americans believe in pure socialism. The kind where the government owns and controls everything. When you look at places that have most closely approximated either of these models economic growth has been poor. You can find small models of tribes or other units of people where it has appeared to work but never at scale.

    So take potatoes. You wont find many economists of any ilk advocating that government dictate the price of potatoes or how many to produce. However, some people think there should be some minimal safety standards but that gets called socialism, but note that even those who claim to believe in markets would prosecute the people who sold potatoes that got people sick rather than just let the markets resolve that issue.

    It’s really a spectrum. In general, people on the left are more likely to believe that market failures exist and they can be fixed. On the right people are less likely to want to intervene, preferring the status quo and using courts to resolve issues. (This ignores the massive amount of money the right would be willing to spend to enforce its preferred behaviors.) In both cases, people believe in markets.

    Steve

  • steve Link

    I like Sumner quite a bit and I think he helps place the US on the spectrum and why we have had the best post-covid recovery amongst first world countries.

    https://www.themoneyillusion.com/an-american-economic-miracle/

    Steve

  • I agree with very nearly everything in that comment, steve. From my point of view the question isn’t market economy or command economy but more market or more command.

    Just to add a little fuel to the fire, every patent or copyright is a government-granted monopoly yet only the most extreme want to do away with them entirely. Most anarcho-capitalists I have encountered defend patents and copyrights vehemently. Right now I think we have erred in the direction of too long a duration before intellectual property goes into the public domain.

Leave a Comment