Goldilocks Political Economy

Will's recent Marketplace commentary is confusing. First, Will says that a market is only as stable as the regulations that define it, implying that regulations imposed by the state are a necessary precursor to functioning markets. Wasn't this Cass Sunstein's shtick a few years ago?

But then Will returns to the Caplanian point at the end of his commentary, expressing skepticism that the political process can deliver the right regulation. What, then, is the point of pushing for better regulation if you know that the political process is incapable of providing it? Is it not the case that ought presupposes can? And if the political process is incapable of providing what you want it to provide, isn't that a good reason to think it ought not try?

Update: Will responds and I rejoinder here.

Share this

Will admits NPR sensitivity...

In the face of dissenting opinion. I can tell you, that as an NPR listener, they are indeed biased towards a pro-regulation/big government spin. They, for the most part despise laissez faire and would never let him speak if he blatantly advocated government stepping aside.

I disagree with his stance on cog diss though. I believe that despite his good intentions, he is by default supporting the big lie which he claims to be against.

The state is the problem, but he wouldnt dare say that on NPR without blaming it on the political whipping boy or scapegoat de jour.

In liberty,
S.E. h



Thanks for the link to that little essay. I think I'm actually going to have to publish that argument somewhere "real" as it has struck a chord with some people.