Free The Market

  • Dave_dugdale

Free market ideology, as represented in the nuanced ideas of Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek, has not outlived its purposefulness. Indeed, rejecting this ideology would be not just intellectually tragic. Rejection would be practically tragic, threatening the welfare and well-being of billions of people throughout the world.

What we do need to reject is “free market ideology” as caricatured by critics and corrupted by politics. Now more than any time in my professional lifetime actual free market economics needs to capture the imaginations of young scientists, political intellectuals, and the general public, so that we can reverse the economic catastrophe we are starring down due to fiscal irresponsibility and monetary mischief. The dire fiscal situation in Europe and the US is not a matter of mere opinion; we have simply reached the tipping point of sustainable public expenditures. In order to address the problem, we need to revisit fundamental questions concerning the proper scale and scope of government in a free society. Sound economic reasoning, not flights of theoretical fantasy, is what is required for this task.

The past thirty years proved the validity of Adam Smith’s assertion, “The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition…is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations".

During “the age of Milton Friedman”, as Andrei Shleifer dubed it, key developments in economic freedom—deregulation in the US and UK, the collapse of communism in East and Central Europe, and the opening up of the economies of China and India—allowed individuals to surmount government meddling in the economy. From 1980 to 2005, there were marked, world-wide improvements in life expectancy, education, democracy, and living standards as integration into a world economy delivered billions of individuals from poverty, ignorance and squalor.

September 11, 2001 changed that. “The war on terror” justified another great expansion of the scale and scope of government. Thus, like the Great Depression before it, the Great Recession was preceded not by a “do nothing” administration that supported free market policies, but by an activist administration that embraced the power of government intervention and greatly expanded the role of government throughout the economy and society at large.

The great free market economic thinkers from Adam Smith to F. A. Hayek would understand why this change happened. They never argued that individuals were hyper-rational actors possessed with full and complete information, operating in perfectly competitive markets. They only argued that individuals will pursue, in the best way they can, those activities that are in their interest to pursue. These thinkers knew that individuals are individuals, fallible but capable human actors plagued by alluring hopes and haunting fears, not lightening calculators of pleasure and pain.

Human fallibility may cause “failures,” inefficient markets, but this very fallibility also sets in motion the market process of discovery and adjustment.

A setting of private property rights, free pricing, and accurate profit and loss accounting aligns incentives and communicates information so that individuals realize the mutual gains from trade with one another. Efficient markets are an outcome of a process of discovery, learning, and adjustment, not an assumption going into the analysis. That process, however, operates within political, legal, and social institutions. Those institutions can promulgate policies that block discovery, inhibit learning, and prevent adjustment, causing the market to operate poorly.

So rather than free market ideology being obsolete, what is needed is a reinvigorated ideological vision of the free market economy: a society of free and responsible individuals who have the opportunity to prosper in a market economy based on profit and loss and to live in caring communities. Yes, caring communities. The Adam Smith that wrote The Wealth of Nations also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the F. A. Hayek that wrote Individualism and Economic Order also wrote about the corruption of morals in The Fatal Conceit. Our challenge today is to embrace the full scope of free market ideology so as to understand the preconditions under which we can live better together in a world of peace, prosperity, and progress.

About the Author

Peter Boettke

Peter J. Boettke is University Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Economics for Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: On the Teaching, and Teachers, of Economics.

Readers' Comments

  • Avatar

    Roger 02.09.2011

    Seems right to me. Liberty works. The trouble with asking the government to correct for our irrational side is that the government has its irrational side too. I don't think we want to plug more power into the irrational side of human nature!
  • Avatar

    Mendez 04.09.2011

    I am afraid free market is not so free or so strong anymore. Between stimulus packages, government "corrections", and many other distortions of its very signals, the original Smith-Hayek idea drags, at the same time it gets the cold reception, accused of “failures” while ignoring the political maneuvers that it has undergone. I have seen this attitude time and again in Latin America. It reminds me the complaint of “slow prices in the free market” according to Keynes!
  • Avatar

    Ryk 04.09.2011

    Well said Professor and timely advice, but include the great mind of Ludwig von Mises author of Human Action, arguably the greatest economic thinker of 20th century.
  • Avatar

    rp 05.09.2011

    while there is some truth that in asserting that there was world-wide improvement in living standards for many people from 1980-2005, it is also true that living standards in the United States have been stagnant, at best, and that the distribution of income and wealth in the US was marked by accelerated accumulation in the top 1% of the population. That is neither desirable or healthy for our economy or our democracy.
  • Avatar

    Gerb 05.09.2011

    Words are cheap. Let us know when you've actually fixed something.
  • Avatar

    matt 05.09.2011

    While you acknowledge that there is no way to have perfect information, your response is to say, "well, even acting individually with imperfect information is better than nothing." But we have now seen that the non-transparent or direct factors that weigh in to people's decisions can have huge impacts. It's what you Economists call "Externalities." If my decisions to pollute kill a bunch of young children, or force them into costly medical debts, or decrease home values near by, are not factored in, then I would argue that this is overall going to be bad for societal--and yes, economic--progress in the long run (needless to say for those children immediately). These are also irreversible decisions that the market can not respond to and fix through the normal back and forth of markets. I am sorry, but this argument about market efficiency is way too theoretical. Asymmetry in information and in impact/outcomes is always an issue. That is why we need some degree of regulations. That said, I believe those regulations need to be reviewed and adjusted every 5 years to make sure they are still doing what we want and not having other side effects. To think that there is one set of objective economic conditions that is the "right" way in perpetuity is a bit short-sited on both sides of the political spectrum.
  • Avatar

    Gerb 05.09.2011

    Who needs loss?
  • Avatar

    Amin 06.09.2011

    "Free" market worship is the greatest threat to competitive markets. Smith and Hayek both understood that "free" markets could and often inexorably would lead to market power and the resulting inefficiencies of a free, noncompetitive (or worse, anticompetitive) market." Please substantiate this. "Losses in efficiency (and equity) in our markets is more attributable to the freedom to exercise market power that has resulted from deregulation than it is to constraints to market freedom. Competitive markets bring efficiency." Please substantiate this. There is no indication that freedom to exercise market power has been the root cause of any of the major problems in the recent past. On the contrary, substantial regulatory obstacles have been put in front free exercise of market power to control and guide market activity to meet social engineering agendas.
  • Avatar

    Gerb 06.09.2011

    'Externalities': go look up that word while standing in a pool of toxic sludge in Ecuador. Caring capitalism is an oxymoron.
  • Avatar

    Charles Wheeler 07.09.2011

    It's like the banking collapse (thanks to the blinkered dogmatism of its free market adherents) never happened! The major advances in opportunity and living standards were not achieved 1980-2005 (when median wages stagnated and debts increased commensurately), but between 1945-1975. This is revisionism of the worst kind -in which, in true Humpty Dumpty form, the term 'free market' means just what the author wants it to mean.
  • Avatar

    Adam 10.11.2011

    Actually, it was the lack of government interference which has gotten us into such fiscal trouble in the US and in the world. We didn't regulate very well and the private sector, motivated by greed and self improvement, that lent a ton of money to the wrong people.

your opinion

Bitte lassen sie dieses Feld zwecks Spamverhinderung leer.