My favourite 20th century economics text is Henry Clay’s Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader. It turns out that in 1921, the Professor of Economics at Ohio State University, H. Gordon Hayes, wrote a booklet on “Problems and Exercises to Accompany Clay’s Economics for the General Reader” which I discovered on the net a few weeks ago and which has just arrived. So I thought, as we prepare for the weekend, that we might ponder this question from Professor Hayes for which I have no ready answer myself:
‘The policy of laissez-faire is based upon the same social philosophy as the policy of “free love”.’ Is this true? Discuss.
Hint: it’s fair to say that Clay wasn’t in favour of either.
I might note that Clay may be the only economics text to have shown up in a work of great literature. This is from Chapter 5 of The Great Gatsby:
The rain cooled about half-past three to a damp mist, through which occasional thin drops swam like dew. Gatsby looked with vacant eyes through a copy of Clay’s Economics, starting at the Finnish tread that shook the kitchen floor, and peering toward the bleared windows from time to time as if a series of invisible but alarming happenings were taking place outside. Finally he got up and informed me, in an uncertain voice, that he was going home.
Economics texts and vacant eyes is an old story.
Correct, ie. accurate, big picture economists should be long term trading rich, not merely medium salary comfortable……unless it’s all just a game of two halves.
Alfonso
14 Sep 12 at 6:49 pm
The Great Gatsby is full of terrific contemporary allusions, eg, that to Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color.
Big Jim
14 Sep 12 at 6:56 pm
Interesting comparison:
No committment, make your bed, up to you, no guilt hmm maybe depends how comfortable you are with the hands off as per the guilt…In my experience proponents of laissez-faire are generally those heading into the vulnerable fray with their benefits locked in at birth…perhaps the same is true of those pushing for the ‘free love’ option…hehe
Beeph
14 Sep 12 at 8:26 pm
I can give you answer right here.
No.
laissez-faire is where you let buyers and sellers work out prices between themselves, without institutional interference.
Sex is a transaction.
The attraction of “free love” was the hope that without institutional interference the cost of getting into her pants would be lower.
But it never was in the long run.
Ooh Honey Honey
14 Sep 12 at 9:10 pm
There is probably a reason why economics texts are not metnioned in great literature, and that’s because they are dull.
However, I’m pretty sure that Anthony Powell has his bufoonish villain, WIdmerpool, talk about economic theory in the only piece of great litereature I kinow to be named after a financial market: “The Acceptance World,” an early form of bill brokerage.
Rococo Liberal
14 Sep 12 at 9:29 pm
So that is why I keep falling asleep …
Helen Armstrong
14 Sep 12 at 9:41 pm
They both have a price. In laissez-faire markets it’s integral to the transaction. In unrestrained bonking it’s consequential to the transaction (eg the clap, pregnancy, damaged relationships etc.)
Not sure that means they’re based on the same social philosophy though.
DavidLeyonhjelm
14 Sep 12 at 10:11 pm
Has lassie fair ever been done anywhere?
Pickles
14 Sep 12 at 10:22 pm
You now that quote really does seem to want to push the idea that both lead to chaos and pernicious side effects as David noted.
Because I know how important a redesigned around Sustainability but still centrally planned economy is to the story of what is being pushed in Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa, basically anywhere capitalism and individualism and personal liberty ever flourished, via education–K-12 and higher ed. I wrote a post about laissez faire vs dirigisme a few months back.http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/why-the-world-makes-far-more-sense-if-you-add-dirigisiste-to-the-things-you-understand/
And honestly all the political maneuverings around the world and statist schemes and Lewandowsky’s maligning studies that has more holes than a sieve and carbon taxes that harm and making student wellbeing and values the focus of global education ALL make more sense if you understand how and why laissez faire brings prosperity. And why the statists love dirigisme no matter how much it hurts the non politically connected who must pay the bills.
The next story called “How Can Ed Reform Lead to Innovation if it is Really Mind Arson?” is apt anywhere in the West I have studied. And yes Australia’s version of the US Common Core is called the Core Skills. Plus there is a Framework now on Employability that sucks out knowledge from being a product of education.
The Corporatists and Dirigistes trying to eliminate Creative Destruction to benefit their current products and technology and marketplace are harming all of us. Rent seeking economies always do.
Robin
14 Sep 12 at 11:18 pm
Forget the texts. Go for gold like Financial Reckoning Day or Liar’s Poker.
Human Action might be tough but you will come out enlightened.
.
14 Sep 12 at 11:43 pm
Will give that a proper read thanks Robin
Pickles
15 Sep 12 at 12:36 am
That’s really weird thinking. The “price” is being nice to a girl, feeding her, putting a roof over her head etc.
“the clap” is rarely something you willingly pay for sex.
“pregnancy” is not a price, but agreeing to look after her and child are.
“damaged relationships” are simply failed transactions.
Ooh Honey Honey
15 Sep 12 at 8:25 am
Robin,
I have been convinced the Finnish model is good. I believe it can even be tied to performance through the use of a trailing fee rather than regular performance bonuses.
If the Finns liberalise their economy, should they change to the education system of 1950s America?
PS, What do you think of John Taylor Gatto?
.
15 Sep 12 at 11:02 am
‘The policy of laissez-faire is based upon the same social philosophy as the policy of “free love”.’ Is this true? Discuss.
True. As is the right to bare arms. It’s dog eat dog and you take your chances. And so we regulate who can carry a gun; very useful, and we have family law to protect the rights of children and spouses, and most of us end up choosing a permanent relationship.
I think Dawkins selfish gene comes into play. The powerful few call no holds barred , but the many less advantaged band together to constrain the likelihood of being co-opted into building cathedrals palaces and pyramids.
Power and wealth often are the product of hard work, but as we look across the world and history more often the product of birth, good fortune or skulduggery. We all want the freedom to make our own way in the world, without having it taken from us by someone with more guns, money, power, or in the case of free love someone more rich charming and beautiful.
farma
16 Sep 12 at 9:07 am