• Tag Archives free markets
  • What John Oliver Could Learn from Mises

     

    I usually enjoy watching John Oliver’s show, Last Week Tonight, because it is funny and informative at the same time. His latest episode on corporate consolidation was, alas, not one of the better ones.

    The segment has Oliver talking about how certain industries are being dominated by a handful of firms and how that is bad for consumers. He particularly focuses on the airline and telecommunications industries. So far so good.

    Everyone agrees that a lack of competition in the market is bad. Oliver then goes on to blame a lack of regulation for this and calls for the more aggressive application of antitrust laws.

    Capitalism, Amirite?

    This reminded me of one of my favorite Mises quotes:

    As a rule, capitalism is blamed for the undesired effects of a policy directed at its elimination. The man who sips his morning coffee does not say, “Capitalism has brought this beverage to my breakfast table.” But when he reads in the papers that the government of Brazil has ordered part of the coffee crop destroyed, he does not say, “That is government for you”; he exclaims, “That is capitalism for you.”

    Corollary: Government regulation leads to calls for more government regulation to fix the problems created by previous regulation.

    Mises wrote this outstanding paragraph right in the preface of his brilliant and insightful book Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, which I recommend to everyone.

    Oliver’s segment on corporate consolidation is a case in point. He takes a problem created by government, namely oligopoly, and calls for more government control to fix it.

    Government-Caused Oligopolies

    Let us take the case of airlines. Why are there only four major airlines in the US? Robert W. Poole Jr., of the Reason Foundation, wrote way back in 2000 that the main obstacle to competition is the difficulty in obtaining gates at airports.

    Large airlines sign long-term leases with airport authorities, which gives them exclusive access to gates at airport terminals, shutting out competition from new entrants. It also gives airlines monopolies over certain routes. This, Poole shows, is due to the airports being government owned, and thus risk averse. A long-term lease gives them a steady revenue stream.

    He compares it with Europe, where airports are run privately. Since these airports are for-profit businesses, they lease gates by the hour to individual airlines, thus preserving competition in the market.

    More recently in 2016, David R. Henderson defended the merger of American Airlines and US Airways along similar lines, saying that the main constraint was gates, and not the number of airlines. He also pointed out that in Europe foreign airlines were allowed to provide domestic flights, unlike in the US.

    If a socialist cesspool like Europe has more, better, and cheaper airlines, clearly a lack of regulation is not the problem.

    This is not just restricted to airlines. Every monopoly or oligopoly that has been sustained over a large time period has been aided by government regulations and subsidies. For instance, there is the telecommunications industry, where government backs monopolies for firms like AT&T. The health insurance market in the US lacks competition because insurers were, until very recently, prevented from competing across state lines.

    It is deeply troubling, then, that people blame free markets for problems created by government. As I write this on the eve of Mises’s birthday, I feel that there is an ever greater need to highlight the evils of government intervention; to direct people’s anger at the real source of trouble. During such times, brilliant minds like Mises will be sorely missed.


    Jairaj Devadiga

    Jairaj Devadiga is an economist who illustrates the importance of property rights and freedom through some interesting real-world cases. When he is not doing research, he enjoys reading about medicine, astronomy, computers, and law among other things. Readers may email him at jairajdevadiga@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, feedback etc.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • What the UN Gets Wrong about Free Markets

    What the UN Gets Wrong about Free Markets

    Hillel Neuer has succeeded in getting the UN Human Rights office to delete a tweet that asked whether “market fundamentalism”–namely, “the belief in the infallibility of free market economic policies”–is “an urgent threat.” I suppose it means a threat to human rights.

    Read the story in full here. Neuer issued a magnificent press statement:

    Tellingly, the same UN human rights office has failed to issue a single tweet about this past month’s dire human rights crisis in Venezuela, where millions face mass hunger in part due to attacks on the free market in the failed economic policies of the late president Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro, which included arbitrary seizure of businesses and private property.

    Because the free market is a process of discovery, as it moves from experiment to experiment, certainly some of these experiments may and should fail.

    I’d like just to observe how the erased tweet in itself is quite telling. The author calls market fundamentalism “the belief in the infallibility of free market economic policies.” The reference to “free market economic policies” puzzles me. The market is a process, “a vast and on-going laboratory of experiments” (see this splendid piece by Don Boudreaux). The policies that somehow favor the free market are those that pave the way to people’s ingenuity, so that these experiments can actually take place. This means that they keep in check the discretion of political powers, limit and clarify norms, decrease legal barriers to entry in a certain market, and open up international trade. It is difficult to describe them as “free market economic policies,” because they imply the minimisation of economic policies, that is: of actions that the government takes in the economic field per se.

    Certainly no one believes that “free market economic policies” are infallible per se, as actually free-marketers are well aware of the limitations of decision makers, and of the fact that sometimes “privatisations” and “liberalisations” can go wrong. How to foster transition has been a widely debated issue, and we have success stories as well as failures.

    Neither does anyone believe that “the free market” is infallible. That’s kind of too obvious to stress, but because the free market is a process of discovery, as it moves from experiment to experiment, certainly some of these experiments may and should fail. “Markets fail, that’s why we need markets” is a good way of putting it. (I’m quoting Arnold Kling. See this article by Arnold and Nick Schulz).

    I know myself that a tweet is 140 characters, and one may argue that whoever wrote that UN tweet went for synthesis. But I fear that the tweet itself is quite revealing of an understanding, or lack thereof, which comes before and informs profoundly the political bias that brought the author to write such a tweet. Coming from people who should be concerned with a matter as sensitive and important as human rights, the author highly deserves the shaming treatment Hillel Neuer served him.

    A version of this article was first published by EconLog.

    Alberto Mingardi


    Alberto Mingardi

    Alberto Mingardi is Director General of Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy’s free-market think tank.

     

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.