Monetarist induced identity crisis
It’s my boyfriend’s 21st as of midnight, so I’m sharing my feelings to keep myself sane while providing moral support to him as he regurgitates the shots that his bastard, drunkard friends so eagerly shoved down his throat…. I’m pretty sure that’s not how it worked exactly, but that’s the picture he painted for me after his roommate deposited him in my care and wished me luck.
So I haven’t yet started on my expectations reading because I’m still trying to get a better understanding of monetarism. I’m reading the “Conversations with Economists” chapter on monetarism, and so far it’s making enough sense to me. I’m at the part where Brunner is discussing how monetarist thought reassesses the assumptions Keynes makes about politicians. What I get from it so far is that he disagrees with Keynes’ implication that individuals in the government are only concerned with social costs and benefits and have no personal ambitions. Instead he seems to adhere to the method of thought we developed in Humphrey’s comparative class last semester, where politicians are rational and self interested, and seeking to maximize their profits even if it’s at the expense of the public sector.
This logic makes sense to me, and it kind of creates issues with how I perceive my identity. Monetarists advocate limited government intervention in the private sector and therefore laissez fair policies, which are associated with conservativeness. I have, and still do consider myself a politically liberal-minded person, but my agreement with aspects of monetarist thought seems contrary to this fact. I think the issue has to do largely with the strict dichotomy between liberal and conservative. Politicians have as great a likelihood for exploitation of the public sector as corporations do in the private sector, and therefore both need to be limited. I guess that thought in and of itself is both liberal and conservative and at the same time neither. I don’t really know what that perspective gives me aside from non-idealistic. But there you have it. I’m going to go hunt down some former frat boys now.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
One can be politically liberal, yet still doubt the ability of government to effectively fine tune the economy.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Rather than thinking of laissez-faire economics as conservative, I would more consider it libertarian or fiscally conservative. The term conservative can be associated with any number of conflicting attributes, ranging from fearing gay people to wanting the government to butt out of people’s lives. (Don’t be offended, conservatives!– I am by no means implying that you all fear gay people.)
I too consider myself liberal-minded, but no one can deny the amazing amount of waste, gridlock, and red tape that is produced by our government system. To me, it’s a necessary evil created by over 200 years of compromises. I think corruption and exploitation amongst American politicians is mild compared to what we often perceive– the real concern is people’s willingness to voluntarily give up their rights in favor of more government power and their unwillingness to hold political leaders accountable for their actions.
So I guess my main point is that the problem with fiscal policy isn’t necessarily corruption on the part of politicians– the issue is the lack of a unified, strategic approach to the economy. The Fed can make unilateral decisions and easily reverse them, while the government is composed of fifty state legislatures and one Congress all trying to make their constituents happy, which is not possible without some heavy costs.
Wow, this post is way longer than I thought it would be! Alright, I should stop rambling now. But I hope your boyfriend is okay! (I’m personally thankful mine has never had a drink in his life– puking is so unattractive.)