“Democracy has become a new faith. Simply saying the word supposedly makes an argument stronger, as though there . . . → Read More: What Practical Measures Can be Taken to Improve Policy Outcomes in Democracies?]]> There seems to be increasing skepticism these days about the worth of democracy. The following quote from a post by John Humphreys on the “Thoughts on Freedom” blog provides a good example of what I mean:

“Democracy has become a new faith. Simply saying the word supposedly makes an argument stronger, as though there is some inherent morality in two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Democracy has it’s uses — it allows you to change government without any killing and it puts downward pressure on corruption. But I doubt that it leads to better policy, and indeed I think it has a built-in bias towards ever more totalitarian policy controlled by special interest groups …”

In my view Humphreys is wrong. There is an inherent morality in democracy when it is perceived appropriately as a system in which all members of the polity have equal potential to influence the construction and operation of the political order. The problem is that it is often seen to be legitimate for some groups to use democratic politics as a means to obtain benefits at the expense of others. Such attitudes should be denounced as immoral for the same reason that the attitude that the market economy exists to enable some people to benefit through opportunistic exploitation of others is widely denounced as immoral. As James Buchanan has emphasised, the viability of a market economy and a democratic political system both depend on norms of mutual respect and reciprocity.

The political system in most democratic countries does not have huge problems in dealing with blatant attempts by some people to benefit at the expense of others. Democratic politics can be effective in dealing with corruption (as John Humphreys acknowledges). It is worth noting, however, that corruption often goes undetected for long periods where dedicated institutional arrangements do not exist to detect it.

I think that democratic politics are also reasonably effective in dealing with unsubtle attempts at vote buying, for example where a governing party promises additional benefits to residents of marginal seats in a desperate attempt to hold onto or win office. Parties initiating such tactics risk being perceived by voters as acting unfairly – and hence unworthy of being elected to government.

It is much more difficult for voters to deal appropriately with complex issues such as those involved in trade protectionism. A recent policy brief prepared for the Lowy Institute by Bill Carmichael, Saul Eslake and Mark Thirlwell describes the nature of the problem as follows:

“Most of us have a limited understanding of what is at issue in decisions about protection. Our response to the prospect of opening domestic markets is influenced by the information available to us about the domestic consequences. In the absence of public information about the economy-wide gains at issue for the community as a whole, and in view of the more visible costs to prospective losers, the latter have naturally found support at home. As a result, governments have had difficulty mobilising a domestic commitment to open domestic markets to international competition” (“Message to the G20: defeating protectionism begins at home” p 7-8).

The solution advocated by the authors is “a domestic discipline on national decision-making that promotes wide domestic awareness of its economy-wide costs.” Rather than attempt to summarise the proposals here I recommend that people should read them in the context in which they are presented in the paper.

The thought that I would like to leave you with here is that there is scope for policy outcomes in democracies to be improved if more intellectual effort is put into constructive efforts of the kind presented in the Lowry paper.

With the recent turnaround in the stock market, happy days are here again, at least for a minute. And yet, if you are very, very still, you will a hear a faint rustling in the background, like something scary sneaking up on a rabbit.

That rustling you hear is everybody sneaking around looking . . . → Read More: Whose Fault Is It? Assigning Blame for Tough Times at Home]]>

With the recent turnaround in the stock market, happy days are here again, at least for a minute. And yet, if you are very, very still, you will a hear a faint rustling in the background, like something scary sneaking up on a rabbit.

That rustling you hear is everybody sneaking around looking for anybody to blame for our current economic distress. Soon we will witness a free-for-all blamefest.

Let me just get a jump on here that while no one is paying attention.

First of all, I don’t believe that we are witnessing the bursting of an ‘oil bubble.’ What we are seeing now is a combination of 1) an expected drop in prices due to a drop in demand and 2) a reaction to market turbulence that sent the dollar dropping rapidly against the euro. This happy time won’t last. It’s a blip on the screen; a shiny reflection on the water that survivors stranded on a deserted island briefly mistake for a rescue ship.

Calm down. It’s not a rescue ship. We really are doomed.

So let’s get back to naming names and assigning blame. Who caused this mess? Was it Alan Greenspan? Was it day traders and short sellers? Was it oil and commodities speculators? Whom should we string up for this? I think there is plenty of blame to go around, but it doesn’t seem to be settling in the right places. It may never settle there. That doesn’t mean I can’t assign it in my own special way, right here, right now:

Bad CEOs.

Why is it that if I go to the restroom too many times on my shift I get in trouble, but if our CEO loses us billions of dollars by making risky investment decisions that go bad, he gets to retire with a golden parachute of $132 million? Personally, I call that bad management. I mean, I could run our corporation into the ground faster and better and all I would require by way of a parachute is a single million dollars. That’s all I want, not a penny more. You see, right there I could have saved our stockholders $131 million but did anyone ask me? No. I’m not waiting by the phone either.

Dumb voters.

It really is the economy stupid. What did you think the spoiled son of a Texas oilman was going to do for you anyway? What ever made you think for one single second that he even cared? Molly Ivins sounded the alarm about Dubya over and over again, in book after book, and she kept on sounding it right up until her untimely death last year, but did anyone listen? They did not. You know those chickens that will be in every pot? First they have to come home to roost. That’s what’s happening right now. Try and catch one if you can. You’ll be needing the protein.

Consumerism.

Who ever heard of an economy that could sustain itself simply by buying tons of cheap crap from China? Which economic theory lays that possibility out in a way that makes even marginal sense? I used to like to troll the bargain end-caps at Target as much as the next woman, but no more. Even if it means the terrorists win, my pocketbook has forced me back to ‘use it up, wear it out, make it do’. I have been forced to ’stretch’ meat with noodles and mashed potatoes. Next I’ll be making Depression Cake. We should have known this all along, but, flush with cash, many Americans overspent while the housing boom was booming, and now that it’s bust, the party is over. Expect the next waive of credit defaults to be unsecured.

Congress.

Investment banks should not be allowed to chop up bad in debt and package it in ways that make it untraceable, then trade it in insane ways that bring down entire retail institutions. That is the sort of high risk gambit that regulation was invented to address, but no one in Congress got around to passing any regulation. Could it be because they themselves were making too much money while things were going well? No, that’s too cynical. Still, they have been less than effective. The current legislation meant to help out the five million homeowners expected to lose their homes this year to foreclosure, if passed, will help about 400,000 people, if the banks agree to work with them. It leaves the decision up to the banks. But it hasn’t been passed yet. There’s talk of a veto. God help us, because Congress won’t. You can count on that.

That’s my short list for today. I’d like to see a parade of CEOs held accountable for horrible decisions and unfathomable losses. I dream about that.

I may as well dream. You know what happens when we let dreams die.