alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 
 V.19 No.7 | February 18 - 24, 2010 

Feature

Righting the Left

The best way to achieve liberal goals? Embrace free markets.

Liberals, the conventional wisdom goes, are the protectors of the poor and downtrodden, the environment, and everything that is good and holy in our society. Conservatives (and libertarians), on the other hand, are nothing but greedy supporters of big business, corruption, and those who would rape and pillage society for the benefit of a small oligarchy of elites. At least this is how I interpret many of the articles and letters I see in the Alibi.

But is it really so? Are liberals always on the side of virtue? Do people like me—who believe that government is usually the source of, not the solution for, many of society’s biggest problems—simply not care? Are we hardhearted, or just misguided?

I Was a Liberal Once ...

I have a relatively unique perspective on the matter. I’m the president of the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s only free market think tank—I don’t call the organization “conservative” because we don’t take stances on social policy. And I was once a left-liberal as well.

In college back in Ohio I was quite active in the campus environmental group. I successfully brought once (and perhaps future) California Governor and environmentalist Jerry Brown to campus to keynote our Earth Day activities. After college I moved to Washington, D.C., and interned for self-avowed socialist Congressman (now Senator) Bernie Sanders of Vermont. My first job involved in Washington was working for democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York.

Eventually, however, I decided that free market capitalism—not taxes and government dictates from Washington, D.C., or state capitals—was the best way to achieve many of the goals that I believe most of us share. These include: easily accessible quality health care, a clean environment, raised living standards and poverty reduction. After reading this, I hope you’ll agree with me.

Health Care: First, Government Should Do No Harm

Despite the rapidly changing political landscape, there is no bigger issue facing Congress today. Before even discussing the topic, we must dispense with the idea that we have anything resembling a free market in health care in the United States. Consider, for starters, that government directly pays for about 50 percent of all health care in this country. What they don’t pay for directly, federal and state governments strictly regulate: Price controls, coverage mandates, professional licensing (which limits supply, thus raising prices) and demands for government permission further conspire to drive up costs.

The “original sin” of American health care is the third-party payment system that gives massive tax subsidies to employers in order to purchase health care for their workers. President Obama rightly pointed to the accidental development of this “system” as a response to wage and price controls that were enacted during World War II as a major driver of health care costs.

Why is employer-based health care a problem? Because the third-party payment system encourages employers to provide insurance for their employees, those employees (aka health care consumers) don't have a reason to price shop for health care. They are not directly affected by prices. Specifically, think about the last time you went to the doctor. Were you aware of the price associated with a particular service? Did you shop around? With little information in terms of costs and little reason to care about them, health care consumers expect everything to be “free” or close to it. In turn, this inflates the role insurance companies have in terms of paying for care and standing between patients and their doctors.

If you are concerned about putting food on the table, you are less worried about saving bald eagles.

This system also reinforces medicine as a “fee-for-service” industry as opposed to a collaborative, health management system. After all, doctors don’t get paid if they don’t administer treatment. This further detracts from the patient-doctor relationship because, after all, patients are not the doctor’s only customer. The health insurance company (and, by extension, your employer) is the other customer since it pays the bulk of the costs.

Lastly, because Americans get their health care from their employers, if you are out of work and want health care, you are forced to pay for health care with after-tax money—an expensive proposition.

For this reason, I think left and right can probably agree that the monstrous health care bill now dying in Congress is not the answer. Forcing poor Americans to buy health insurance when they may be struggling to buy food or pay other bills is nothing if not “anti-poor.” Instead, it is a fantastic bailout for the health insurance industry. While often associated with Republicans and other opponents of reform, that industry has given Democrats more money during this election cycle, according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.

While “Medicare for All” and the various European and Canadian models may seem attractive, the fact is that we can’t afford Medicare as it exists now, much less a dramatically expanded program. Medicare's expected future obligations exceed premiums and dedicated taxes by an astounding $89 trillion. That's about 5 1/2 times the size of Social Security's unfunded $18 trillion liability and about six times the size of the entire U.S. economy.

Reforming American health care—and wresting it from control of the health insurance companies—will not be easy. But it is a starting point from which left and right may find some common ground to retake health care.

An Inconvenient Truth: Free Markets = Cleaner Planet

As complex as health care is, the environment is that simple. In the United States and worldwide, free markets have led to dramatically improved environmental factors. Why is this? For starters, inherent in free markets are property rights. Property rights avoid the tragedy of the commons. This has been most vividly represented in Africa where certain tribes have been given "ownership" of certain endangered species like lions or elephants. Because they benefit materially from tourism generated by this "ownership," the tribes protect the animals rather than killing them for immediate gain. Thus, property rights actually promote short-term sacrifice for long-term collective gains.

As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart’s $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs.

Free markets also spur technological developments. And technology improves the environment in many ways. For starters, the automobile has resulted in vast improvements in terms of urban cleanliness. Prior to the automobile, horses were the main mode of transport. The manure they produced was a huge health problem, particularly in big cities.

Lastly, wealthy people have the money to be concerned about their environment in ways that the poor are simply unable to. If you are concerned about putting food on the table, you are less worried about saving bald eagles.  

Consider some of the environmental “crises” over the last 30 years that have been solved or improved dramatically. Deforestation, water quality, air pollution and wildlife habitats have improved dramatically in nations that have relatively free market policies and strong property rights in place.

Forests in the United States are growing every year. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, we gained 1.5 percent forest cover, or around 10,973,950 acres, between 1990 and 2005. This process continues today. U.S. water quality and standards continue to improve, and air pollution has dropped dramatically in major cities. (Think of Los Angeles, which experiences significantly fewer high ozone days than it did two decades ago.)

Of course, wildlife habitats in the U.S. continue to expand. Wolves were only reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the early Clinton years, and now they are ubiquitous and firmly re-established. Bald eagles and humpback whales are just two additional large animals that have made major comebacks in recent decades. While government regulations did play a role, the fact that the United States economy is wealthy enough to pay for these worthwhile goals is inherent in their success.

These environmental factors have all improved in the relatively economically free United States. The record is more mixed (at least in the short term) in rapidly developing countries like China and India. But the fact is that these nations are investing billions of dollars in environmentally friendly technologies and ways to preserve the environment while continuing to pull billions of their people out of poverty. All of this is far superior to the truly impoverished areas of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America that continue to destroy wildlife and pristine habitat in order to provide subsistence living for rapidly growing populations.

How Wal-Mart (and Capitalism) Helps the Poor

This brings us to poverty reduction, perhaps the most important way in which capitalism achieves liberal goals. Improved rule of law and reducing tariffs that block free trade are just two ways in which freer markets help the poor. China and India are two nations that, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, have embraced capitalism—at least to a far greater extent than ever before—with astounding results.

Since 1980, more than 200 million people have moved above the poverty threshold measure in these nations. The policy shifts allowing private holdings of land in China and greater freedom to create commercial enterprises to produce and exchange goods are revolutionizing life there. These changes were formally institutionalized in 2004 by constitutional revisions bolstering private property rights, and again in 2007.  In contrast, the number of poor people in Africa—a continent that has by and large not engaged in significant market reforms—continues to grow. Insecure property rights and weak regimes discourage investment, production, and exchange throughout much of the continent.

It is not the poor and working classes that hire lobbyists to patrol the halls of Washington and Santa Fe.

Economic freedom and freedom to trade are the greatest poverty eradication tools known to man. The single mother who shops at Wal-Mart and is barely scraping by does not benefit from tariffs. Rather, the tariffs are in place because well-organized and generally well-paid labor union workers lobby Congress to restrict trade. That in turn drives the cost of foreign-made products up and reduces living standards for low-wage workers. The most recent example is the Obama Administration’s tariffs on low-cost tires made in China.

Of course, that single mom who shops at Wal-Mart doesn’t just benefit from free trade; she actually benefits from the existence of Wal-Mart itself. As New York University’s Jason Furman (who has never received any payment from Wal-Mart) puts it, Wal-Mart is “a progressive success story.” Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart’s products.

These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart’s “every day low prices” make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart’s $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs.

The Dirt on Farm Subsidies

Unfortunately, U.S. agriculture policy is an example of bad trade policies that take from the poor and give to the rich. The federal government spends billions of our tax dollars annually to subsidize commodity farmers of wheat, cotton and corn. Recipients of these subsidies are often simply wealthy land owners who don’t actually grow crops, but are instead paid for not planting crops. Former NBA star Scottie Pippen, television mogul Ted Turner, news anchor Sam Donaldson and corrupt corporate titan Kenneth Lay are just a few notable rich people who have received millions of dollars of subsidies in recent years.

The kicker is that American taxpayers are not the only ones harmed by these unfair subsidies. All those subsidies for corn farmers wind up pushing corn syrup into the food supply where we’d otherwise consume old-fashioned cane sugar. Worse, our agriculture policies inflict massive harm upon the poor in other nations.

A perfect example of this is cotton. In December, African cotton producers said they would consider taking legal action against Washington if harmful U.S. subsidies are not repealed promptly. Why would Africans care about U.S. cotton policy? Well, according to the anti-hunger (and anti-agriculture subsidy) group Oxfam, cotton is often the only source of cash income for African families who live on less than $1 a day per person. Added income from increased cotton prices could make a world of difference, but they can’t compete with wealthy, heavily subsidized, U.S. producers.

Oxfam is just one left-of-center group to oppose agriculture subsidies. The Environmental Working Group approaches the elimination of agriculture subsidies from an environmental perspective because, according to its website, “subsidies damage the environment and natural resources.” Unfortunately, too many on the left simply dismiss the benefits of free trade, both for domestic consumers and the poor who wish to trade with us.

The Poor Don’t Hire Lobbyists

I’ve always felt—even when I was a liberal—that the concept that many on the left have of government as a benevolent Robin Hood that takes from the rich to give to the poor is just silly. After all, as 19th century French economist Frédéric Bastiat said, “The state is a great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.” It is not the poor and working classes that hire lobbyists to patrol the halls of Washington and Santa Fe.

Rather than waiting patiently for the “right” person to get into power—Obama clearly wasn’t what the left was looking for—the left needs to embrace free markets and limited government for what they are: the best, fairest economic policies that have resulted in the greatest improvements in living standards throughout human history.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Public Comments (16)
  • I look forward  [ Thu Feb 18 2010 9:06 AM ]

    To the front page piece by Think New Mexico that surely should be coming to balance out and correct all the CATO Institute falsities in this piece.

  • tragedy of the commons  [ Thu Feb 18 2010 9:12 AM ]

    Property rights avoid the tragedy of the commons.

    Not for the big stuff. Tragedy of the Commons is a problem for both planned and free market economies. Who "owns" the atmosphere or the ocean? Who possibly could? Even in the free market, entities can externalize a cost by diminishing a common, shared asset at everyone's expense. I've never seen any serious proposals for dealing with pollution that didn't involve some sort of government oversight.

  • Gessing the Convert  [ Fri Feb 19 2010 11:25 AM ]

    Paul Gessing's two page confession sounded like a GOP advertisement. I, too, am a political convert but have only this short paragraph to confess mine. In practically all my 85 years I was an independent voter and still not registered with any political party. However, that does not stop me from never voting for a republican candidate again. I've seen what the GOP has done to our country. Their constant bickering over less government and no taxes thoroughly sickens me. Who pays for our roads, schools, Medicare, Social Security, Etc.? The Limbaugh deciples all benefit from these things they complain about. Gessing needs to take another look at what he just gave up.

  • Embrace free markets  [ Fri Feb 19 2010 1:52 PM ]

    The problem is that there aren't any free markets because basically, monopolies control (or greatly influence) every major resource and service. More Americans are without health care or have reduced health care at the same time costs are skyrocketing, so I don't believe that insurance rates would go down even if everyone had to go out and buy it. Paul, do you actually think that liberals are in favor of these farm subsidies? As for the Wal-Mart illustration, there is a cost for almost every benefit

    (maybe not for hemp). Wal-Mart controls it's cost by importing and thus, by putting Americans out of work, and also by hiring employees to work p-t, thus eliminating benefits and pushing health care (and other) costs onto the public. Paul do you think that coal (& other) companies will ever stop destroying environments without government intervention? What we need are free markets along with a government that will establish a fair set of rules for the game and enforce them.

  • Finding the Common Ground  [ Fri Feb 19 2010 3:58 PM ]

    Thanks for your piece Paul. It is refreshing to see that some of us are more concerned with solving the issues than picking sides. I believe that most Americans share concerns and desires regarding the larger social problems that face our country and all of us individually. Left or Right, we all want good healthcare, fair economic opportunity for all, quality education for our kids, and a clean and healthy environment. We are often and easily too blinded by our hatred for an individual politician or party to see the best solutions can only come from accurately identifying the problem. Its unfortunate that the media and zealots from both extremes are too busy attacking and defending to find the common ground that leads to a solution.


    Last edited [2/19/10 3:58 PM]
  • To refute just one of the many glaring inaccuracies in this propaganda-pie​ce  [ Fri Feb 19 2010 9:58 PM ]

    From today's UK Guardian:

    World's top firms cause $2.2 trillion of environmental damage, report estimates

    [link]

  • To refute another of the many glaring inaccuracies in this progaganda-pie​ce  [ Sat Feb 20 2010 9:51 AM ]

    Environmental improvements of deforestation, water quality, air pollution and wildlife habitats do not come about because of free markets. They come about because of strong environmental protection laws. Without the clean air act, LA's smog still be as bad as it was in the 1970s. Without the National Park Service, we would have a lot fewer forests. We need a balance between big government and big corporations.

  • Gessing is Only Guessing--Lack​s Logical Thinking  [ Sun Feb 21 2010 6:45 PM ]

    If Gessing's goal is to convince us all to become Republicans or Libertarians, he has failed miserably. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a political system and an economic system. His article lacks substantive examples and correct history about capitalism. His example of the horse manure problem almost made me embarrassed for him. The free market has become a monster that improves little really except the bank accounts of the chosen few. The article, in fact, shows how it has impoverished the rest of us. What an elitist Gessing is; he tells us that we have gotten Walmart as a consolation prize! It is time that we poor. stupid, underpaid, working-class people, regardless of our political convictions, band together and take over our economic system to make it work for "we the people." The job of government is to make laws for all segments of our society and enforce those laws. Why should capitalists be above that?

  • Common Sense  [ Mon Feb 22 2010 9:38 AM ]

    The only real mistake in Gessing's otherwise clear and supportable argument is that he he has made the cardinal sin of trying to confuse our friends on the far left with the facts. I applaud the Alibi for having the courage to share multiple viewpoints. Now that hope and change have turned to wish and wonder, I believe more sensible people from both sides are seeing that neither side has the monopoly on solutions.

  • Bravo, Alibi  [ Wed Feb 24 2010 3:35 PM ]

    I applaud the Alibi for publishing an article with views diametrically opposed to those of many of the paper's readers. You folks will surely endure endless abuse for questioning the accepted -- in fact, the rigorously enforced -- beliefs of the left.

    Like a great many conservatives, I too was once a liberal. But then I began to realize that markets, for all their potential (and real) ventures into viciousness, provide the only way up for the world's poor.

    You can give people a home, a car, and put food on the table. But isn't it much better to give them a job? The government only takes money from the economy. The private sector creates the wealth.

    Yeah, some people are greedy. The past year should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But take a look around. The wealth and living standards of nations are largely determined by the freedom of the markets within.

    Paul, I'm sure you'll receive a lot of grief for this article, too. But there may be one or two readers who have been mulling over some of these ideas, and who will perhaps change their way of thinking due to this article. For the sake of the world's poor, we can only hope so.

    As you know, many liberals are only liberal because it's a nice shortcut - an easy way to convince themselves they are enlightened, compassionate and (most importantly) superior to those benighted conservatives. It's only when they stop worrying about whether others think they're cool and start looking at what actually works that they can really take a logical, and compassionate, look at these issues.

    Maybe you've given them a nudge in the right direction.

  • Yeah, Wal-Mart helps the poor, just not the poor who work there  [ Wed Feb 24 2010 4:03 PM ]

    Wal-mart profits are subsidized by taxpayers who pay for Wal-mart employees' Medicaid and food stamps. How "free market" is that?

  • Free market capitalism  [ Wed Feb 24 2010 7:52 PM ]

    The free market capitalism started with the deregulation of business the '80's by Ron Reagan and hasn't really stopped since. And what has happened: a US government that has to bail out bankrupt banks, Wall Street and other proponents of the free market theory.

    If this were a truly free market capitalism without government subsidies we would not have the following:

    schools, public transportation, including buses, trains, and air planes, affordable hospitals, gasoline and other oil products, large scale farming, nuclear power, coal fired power plants, gas fired generators, cars and trucks to drive, and much more to numerous to mention.

    Withdraw government subsidies and guaranteed loans (recently $8 Billion to the nuclear lobbies) most of the fabric of our society would collapse.

    Of course, there are some of the above that should be allowed to collapse: the nuclear industry, the bankers and wall street merchants who are consumed by greed (one of the 7 deadly sins) as well as the greedy CEO's and Boards of Directors who allow their companies to gouge people.

    The recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations (both foreign and domestic) the right to contribute as much money as they like to political campaigns only shows the complete breakdown of this democracy. If this travesty is not overturned with a constitutional amendment SOON, they I hope that the candidates will have honesty to wear the logos of the corporations who have purchased them - as do the NASCAR racers. And we should demand that the halls of Congress display these logos as well.

    The "free" market costs the taxpayers trillions. So where is the free part?

  • That is so fucking awesome!  [ Thu Feb 25 2010 8:35 AM ]

    I hope that the candidates will have honesty to wear the logos of the corporations who have purchased them - as do the NASCAR racers.

    BEST. IDEA. EVER!

  • more facts about "free market":  [ Thu Feb 25 2010 4:41 PM ]

    The Media Education Foundation presents a Global Vision Production and a Danny

    Schechter Dissection

    _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

    PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIME

    Exposing the forces responsible for the loss of trillions of dollars, millions

    of jobs, massive foreclosures and the disappearance of retirement funds,

    "Plunder: The Crime of Our Time" investigates the unregulated fraud and theft

    that led to the market's collapse in fall 2008. Filmmaker Danny Schechter, Emmy

    Award-winning former ABC News and CNN producer, explores the epidemic of

    subprime mortgages, predatory lending, insurance scams, and high-risk hedge

    funds to illustrate the connection between the housing market and the economic

    collapse that followed. Schechter tells this story by speaking with bankers

    involved in these activities, respected economists, insider experts, and top

    journalists, including Paul Krugman, and convicted white-collar criminal Sam

    Antar. A must for economics, business, and sociology courses, as well as anyone

    who wants to understand the current financial situation.

  • Unions too!  [ Sat Feb 27 2010 5:04 PM ]

    The free market capitalism started with the deregulation of business the '80's by Ron Reagan and hasn't really stopped since. And what has happened: a US government that has to bail out bankrupt banks, Wall Street and other proponents of the free market theory.

    If this were a truly free market capitalism without government subsidies we would not have the following:

    schools, public transportation, including buses, trains, and air planes, affordable hospitals, gasoline and other oil products, large scale farming, nuclear power, coal fired power plants, gas fired generators, cars and trucks to drive, and much more to numerous to mention.

    Withdraw government subsidies and guaranteed loans (recently $8 Billion to the nuclear lobbies) most of the fabric of our society would collapse.

    Of course, there are some of the above that should be allowed to collapse: the nuclear industry, the bankers and wall street merchants who are consumed by greed (one of the 7 deadly sins) as well as the greedy CEO's and Boards of Directors who allow their companies to gouge people.

    The recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations (both foreign and domestic) the right to contribute as much money as they like to political campaigns only shows the complete breakdown of this democracy. If this travesty is not overturned with a constitutional amendment SOON, they I hope that the candidates will have honesty to wear the logos of the corporations who have purchased them - as do the NASCAR racers. And we should demand that the halls of Congress display these logos as well.

    The "free" market costs the taxpayers trillions. So where is the free part?

    The Supreme Court decision of which you speak also allow UNIONS to contribute as money as they like, but you libs never mention that.

  • and that's a shame  [ Mon Mar 1 2010 10:45 AM ]

    The Supreme Court decision of which you speak also allow UNIONS to contribute as money as they like, but you libs never mention that.

    Yes, it's sad that a righty can see a public servant sell out, and say that the problem is that they're too lefty, or that a lefty can see someone sell out and say that the problem is that they're too righty. You'd think they could just agree that it's corrupt, and government is making policies that don't serve any political ideology, not even an ideology that half the country disagrees with. (i.e. name the political ideology that says banks should both be deregulated and supported by government; you can't.)

    Oh wait, some people do say that. Take heart, Wally. Lessig (someone I'd definitely label a "lib") doesn't rail specifically against unions as you might like, but he isn't just whining about for-profit corporations either. The umbrella term "big-spending special interests" does the job, and it's probably the best way to talk about it, too. Worry that your government is for sale, don't talk about how it happens to be for sale to the "wrong" people.

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; close using the little X icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Web Exclusives
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • Latest User Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Most Active Users
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Calendar Comments
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.