What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Anderson on Mueller

Ryan C. Anderson of Public Discourse, the accomplished website of the Witherspoon Institute, has written a two-part extensive review of John Mueller’s Redeeming Economics that ought to be read in full by everyone who claims to give a hoot about liberty and virtue and truth. This is quality stuff.

Comments (10)

Paul,

You are scaring me -- two posts in a row and all I can do is heap praise on you. I too loved the review by Anderson and I wanted to direct your readers to a decent interview with Mueller that I caught the tail end of yesterday on my commute home:

http://www.relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=1270&cid=18&ceid=5854&cerid=0&cdt=5%2f5%2f2011

Click on Hour 3 and go to about the 32 minute mark -- that's where the interview begins. The guest host of the show, Father "Rocky", is one of the best things about Relevant Radio. He has a Facebook page if you want to check it out.

Of related interest, and very thought-provoking in its own right:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-emancipation-of-avarice

Jeff, I'm a bit surprised by your warm embrace of Mueller. Do you not realize how forceful a challenge his book is to the status of the kind of political economic thought you favor?

Thanks for the link.

Rob, that is indeed an excellent essay.

I found the review interesting but found it a bit difficult to get a handle on where Mueller was going in practical terms. I wasn't able to work out (though probably a bit more time and attention on my part would do it) the difference the reviewer was trying to explain between the predictive content of Mueller's theory and that of the two pro-abortion social scientists concerning abortion rates and crime. I did follow the discussion of fertility and religious belief, and I thought there was a good point there--namely, that an analysis of human behavior based on self-interest alone does not explain the difference in birth rates between religious and non-religious people in the West.

The distinction between beneficence and benevolence seemed to me correct and important and seemed, in fact, at least vaguely to "go along with" something like a free market approach to economics. That is to say, once we acknowledge that we are not equally responsible to extend our direct help to everyone but that we have a special responsibility to our own families (for example), all the arrogant, presumptuous socialist talk of "our" health care dollars and the like should be called severely into question.

Similarly, the argument that the purpose for which we spend money (which I gather is what Mueller means by "distribution") makes a difference to how we spend money may cast some light on the gross inefficiency and bumbling of government projects. When one is spending money for the education of vast numbers of children who are not one's own, one is likely to do things differently than if spending money to obtain education only for your own children. But then, free market economists have pointed to something similar for a long time--namely, that when one is spending one's own money (whether for oneself or for some other person one cares about) one is likely to be more cautious, picky, and efficient than if one is spending other people's money. While the "distribution" variable will help to explain more about why this is so (e.g., because one loves one's own children more than other people's children), it's unclear to me that the predictive consequences will be much different.

In short, I appreciated the anti-reductive content in Mueller's analysis of human motives in the social sciences, but it seems to me entirely plausible that particularly Christian free-market folks such as those at the Acton Institute would not be in any sense challenged or rebuked by the injunction to be non-reductive in our understanding of human motives. Whether it is Mueller's own intent to issue such a challenge or not is something I simply could not gather from the review.

Lydia, good comment. I recommend that you try reading Mueller's book. One of his main points is that distribution of resources must always be achieved according to ideas about how they ought to be distributed; in other words, that we can never do away with the "ought" part of economics. The moderns have so often favored a view of economics that just leaves off such normative concerns as irrelevant to the "science" of economics; and this has impoverished our discourse.

Paul,

In my many vigorous debates with Maximos, and to a lesser extent with you, I don't think I have ever denied or denigrated the rightful place of "ought" in economics. My problem is that I have different "normative concerns" than Maximos (most of the time). For example, I value individual liberty and material well-being more than I do the idea of local control, which is why I'm on the side of Walmart as they try to expand in Chicago and against those local businesses and labor leaders who want to keep Walmart out (or force Walmart to pay $X dollars to their employees). How this particular dispute plays out in light of Mueller's ideas I have no idea, but I'm open to the idea that he is challenging me more than I realize ;-)

One of his main points is that distribution of resources must always be achieved according to ideas about how they ought to be distributed; in other words, that we can never do away with the "ought" part of economics.

That still seems descriptive to me, though. One is describing the *other person's* "oughts." "Joe [or the Amish community, or whoever] distributes his resources in this way because he believes such-and-such is the way that they ought to be distributed." You're still engaging in a descriptive enterprise of social science. In fact, that was part of what was interesting about the review as well as being part of why I couldn't figure out what Mueller himself thinks _ought_ to be the case in particular areas (minimum wage, government programs, or whatever): Because the main thrust seemed to be a matter of enriching our descriptive categories in the social sciences. Pretty interesting in itself, but not really quite the same thing as saying that we can never set aside *our own* "ought" views. In fact, quite the contrary. One might have pretty strong disagreements with, say, certain Muslim communities about how resources ought to be distributed--contributions to terrorists and what-not--but still be able to do a good job describing and predicting their actions.

For example, I value individual liberty and material well-being more than I do the idea of local control, which is why I'm on the side of Walmart as they try to expand in Chicago and against those local businesses and labor leaders who want to keep Walmart out (or force Walmart to pay $X dollars to their employees).

So one obvious question is: what if I take the alternate view and say that local control is the true essence of liberty? Put otherwise, am I violating the principles of free enterprise to think the law ought to favor the local and individual over the global and bureaucratic?

Paul,

You say, "what if I take the alternate view and say that local control is the true essence of liberty?" And I say, so be it -- we then engage in a debate about what liberty means and how best to achieve liberty. I could care less if we are "violating the principles of free enterprise" as I agree with your premise -- that political economy is more than just measuring economic outcomes (it is also about values).

My point in that quick comment was not to comprehensively argue for that one position, but rather to agree with your overall premise while showing how I could still disagree with specific policy outcomes.

P.S. A law favoring local businesses over Walmart may better serve the cause of local representative democracy, but for the individual consumer who wants to shop where he wants to shop, it is hard to argue his liberty is well served by that law...

"A law favoring local businesses over Walmart may better serve the cause of local representative democracy, but for the individual consumer who wants to shop where he wants to shop, it is hard to argue his liberty is well served by that law."

So the freedom of the individual consumer to shop where he wants is as important as the right of the citizen to be able to engage in meaningful local democracy?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.