The Conservative Nanny State

Thanks to a friend for pointing me to this book, on conservative economics.

In this book (which I have only read part), Baker suggests that our current dialogue is misleading. It isn't that conservatives don't want big government, it is that they want government to protect their interests. While rather harsh in phrasing, he has some very interesting points. For example, on the issue of free trade, he suggests that what we have now is not free trade, but selective free trade. Dishwashers, for example, compete for jobs in the US based on wages and ability (as such). If a restaurant can hire a Mexican (let's assume legally here) for cheaper wages, then he is free to do so. Let's remember that many conservatives oppose the minimum wage, so if they had their way, that Mexican immigrant could work for next to nothing if he/she were willing, and Americans would find their wages decrease. A good example of this, of course, is the migrant labor that picks our fruit and vegetables.

This "free market" serves a lot of good for our society, or at least most of us in this society, because it makes most of our goods and services less expensive. But, as Baker suggests, white collar professionals do not participate in such an economy. Yes, absolutely, a Mexican trained professor could be hired into a university program--competing on ability--but that University would not be allowed to pay that professor what might pass for a wage in Mexico city.

As a result, those wealthiest professionals prosper in a protected economy. Not only that, but often they participate with government in ventures that are exceedingly unfree and not governed strictly by the market. CEOs and executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not suffer the market's consequence for screwing up. Individual homeowners saddled with poorly vetted mortgages will. Something about "socializing the risk and privatizing the profit," I think.

Anyway.