Thomas Sowell (previous post here) is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow of The Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he has written yet another book, On Classical Economics (Yale 2006).
Although Professor Sowell’s preference for free markets and disdain for governmental planning has often resulted in him being labeled as a leading black conservative (whatever that means), this Jason L. Riley/weekend WSJ ($) interview of Professor Sowell provides an interesting insight regarding that label:
Free-market economics, a legacy of the classical school, is thought of as an old conservative doctrine. But Mr. Sowell explains that it was in fact one of the most revolutionary concepts to emerge in the history of ideas. Moreover, “the thinking of the classical economist was not only a radical break from landmark intellectual figures like Plato and Machiavelli, but also from mainstream thinking to this day.” The notion of a self-equilibrating system — the market economy — meant a reduced role for intellectuals and politicians, [Sowell] says.
“And even today many still haven’t accepted that their superior wisdom might be superfluous, if not damaging.”
Update: Following on the Sowell interview, this NY Sunday Times op-ed by Orlando Patterson, John Cowles Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, is a thoughtful and timely piece on the plight of young black men in America. He argues that academicians have an affinity for socioeconomic explanations and too often dismiss cultural explanations. As he notes: “Too much is at stake for us to fail to understand the plight of these young men.”
von Hayek is alive and well!
as an old conservative doctrine…
actually not–free markets are a very liberal idea
Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, was totally opposed to free markets and any conservative as defined by Burke is opposed to free markets because such brings rapid economic and hence social change. The definition of a conservatism is “opposition to sudden change in the established order”
American conservative doctrine has never supported free markets, paying only lip service to such. American conservative doctrine only supports policies favorable to the economic elite, which is very different than free market economics.
For example, conservatives support no restraint on the consolidation of capital for the purpose of gaining economic power but are unendingly hostile to trade unions, which merely the mirror image of consolidated capital, i.e, consolidate labor.
Yup Moe, trade unions are totally for free markets. I remember them marching in all those “pro-free trade” globalization protests they had. I mean, they would never support government subsidies for industries, either, something only the evil “economic elite” could stomach.
Don,
as regards “pro-free trade” globalization protests . . .
I have no recollection of any rational person in the history of the world marching, asking that their standard of living be cut.
Globization is only that–a series of policies intended to the cut the standard of living of working people–it has nothing to do with free markets.
Take both China and Japan–both remain closed to American products and services. We are as far from free trade with either country as one can imagine.
For example, neither my law license or legal skills have value in China, which is more opposed to jury trials than the Republican Party. when more than 80% of one’s economy is in services and it is unlawful for those services to do business other than in the US, one doesn’t have “free trade” one has globalization.
One only needs to look at what globization has wrought in the United States in the last 30 years to see its negatives–look at weath concentration and the decline of income for all save the top 1/2 of 1%, which doesn’t include most lawyers.