Book Review: Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government

 

In Free Market Revolution, co-authors Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute, undertook a difficult task.

Since Ayn Rand made the case for egoism as the morality of capitalism in Atlas Shrugged (and more pointedly in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal), numerous books have argued that free markets produce wealth, discussing various aspects capitalism, and criticizing every type of government interference with markets as impractical. From Milton and Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose to books by George Gilder and others, we have not been spared the practical arguments for capitalism.

 

 

Yet the size, scope and power of our government controlled economy continues to expand. Most advocates of limited government treat the expansion as though it is an inevitable consequence of the nature of government.

Brook and Watkins show that the cause is something else: ideas accepted in our culture. They have set out to make the case, in a book that is short and readable, for a better set of ideas and bring Rand’s morality into the mainstream.

This is an uphill battle. Profit and those who seek it are almost universally viewed with suspicion. Many people assume that if someone is needy, the government has a moral obligation to provide help. Advancing this view is no way to defend capitalism. This is a key point of Free Market Revolution.

Brook and Watkins present an abbreviated economic history, debunking welfare-statist lies, and explore the mechanisms of free markets. They most importantly demonstrate that capitalism is moral.

“A moral defense of the profit motive would have to say that living as a trader, for your own happiness and by your own effort, is noble.”

This puts the emphasis on where it belongs: living by your own effort, trading with others, for the sake of your own happiness.  When it is stated this clearly, who could argue with it?

Throughout the book, they provide insights that are probably new to most readers, and will increase one’s understanding of how people coordinate productive efforts in a free market.

For example, they discuss the problem known as “the coincidence of wants.”

In barter one party may want what the other has, but the other party may not wish to reciprocate. One example in the book is the case  of one man who makes shoes and another who catches fish. But if the fisherman already has shoes, no trade is mutually desired. Money, however, makes trade more efficient. Suppose the shoemaker trades his product for whatever commodity is used as money, knowing he can always trade money for wheat or anything else.

Brook and Watkins culminate their discussion:

 

…originally money was a material good—usually gold. Gold was the most marketable good in the economy…

 

To grasp this is to see the root of the problem with our present worldwide system of irredeemable money. The government prohibits people from using the most marketable good, gold, in favor of the government’s paper money. But the paper, based on debt, is not marketable without legal tender laws that force people to accept it.

Free Market Revolution also discusses competition and the relentless pressure to respond to the market, competitors, innovation, and other changes. Brook and Watkins use an effective anecdote from the early days of Intel Corporation to illustrate the honesty, discipline and focus required to remain in business. When new competitors were manufacturing computer memory chips, Intel was no longer able to make a profit in that business, the co-authors write, so Intel decided to focus on microprocessors instead.

Finally, [Intel executive Andy] Grove asked then-CEO Gordon Moore, ‘If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do?’ Moore replied without hesitation, ‘He would get us out of memories.’ After a long moment, Grove said, ‘Why shouldn’t you and I walk out the door, come back and do it ourselves?’

That’s what Intel did—and it paid off with impressive results for Intel, vendors and consumers.

Free Market Revolution is illuminating in this regard, especially for those unfamiliar with running a business.

However, this book is most likely to convince those already mostly convinced of the virtues of capitalism. It would fill a thick volume or series of volumes to cover the morality of self-interest with regard to capitalism, or a decent history of markets and welfare-statist failures, or how free markets coordinate the activities of all participants. Free Market Revolution makes the mistake of trying to traverse all of these domains.

The writing is uneven. There are many gems, though there are also missed opportunities for greater clarity thorough editing. For example, in more than one case an important term is defined within an “em dash”:

“The cornerstone of Marxian economics, for instance, is the labor theory of value— the idea that the value of goods produced is a function of the physical labor that went into producing them.”

I doubt that this will be clear to a reader who is new to Ayn Rand’s ideas and who has not studied economics (and if the reader already knows the labor theory of value, this is unnecessary).

Some definitions lack even an em dash. Rand fans and Objectivists may be familiar with Immanuel Kant and his “categorical imperative”—an unlimited moral duty to sacrifice yourself (em dash irony intended)—while others, such as Tea Party conservatives and independents, may be lost.

 

Other parts need more information to get the co-authors’ underlying point. Consider this example: “Don’t be confused by the fact that we sometimes pay more for a product than we would like or get paid less than we had hoped. The fact that a gain from trade isn’t as large as we would have preferred doesn’t change the fact that it is a gain.”

This part, included in a section discussing trade, may not suffice for someone who seeks to grasp why health insurance costs so much compared to, say, life insurance. Too much of Free Market Revolution reads like shorthand for those who know the philosophy, leaving those who don’t know as much somewhat confused.

I often hear people complain that a free market doesn’t “work”. What I think they mean is that they don’t think the free market gives them what they want at the price they want. Brook and Watkins understand why this is an error, but, again, their answers and explanations don’t always amount to a persuasive argument.

They write, for instance, that “Upton Sinclair’s socialist propaganda aside, historian Gabriel Kolko notes that food makers ‘learned very early . . . that it was not to their profit to poison their customers…

Will today’s readers recognize the reference to Sinclair’s The Jungle? If not, inserting a second author that most people haven’t read is not helpful.

General audiences attracted to Ayn Rand’s inclusion in the subtitle may be receptive to Brook’s and Watkins’ arguments, but those who like her fiction and want to examine her ideas more closely may be left unmoved or, worse, confused. If one has read Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand did not persuade him, then it is worth asking: will Free Market Revolution?

Free Market Revolution contains a few economics errors, especially in monetary science. Both Keynesians and Monetarists hold that “inflation” means rising prices. Brook and Watkins do no service to the reader—or to the cause of liberty—by ceding this error. Most economists of the Austrian school (to which I expect Brook and Watkins subscribe) define inflation as an increase in money and/or credit (Mine is a more specific definition: an expansion of counterfeit credit).

Promoting the view of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman, i.e., that inflation means rising prices, is a serious error; industry is constantly increasing efficiency, so this flawed definition essentially cedes to the government that to steal the wealth of those who store it in dollars is acceptable.  Absent inflation, prices would be falling.

Those who have studied Austrian economics and are familiar with what it has to say about liberty are among those who need the most help in putting liberty into the context of morality, and this inflation error, repeated in a number of places, may weaken the co-authors’ credibility with free market scholars.

In many places, Free Market Revolution is excellent. It is written to promote a cause which is both crucial and urgent—especially the cause of moving toward the gold standard. But I am skeptical that Free Market Revolution is likely to have a large impact on today’s readers, let alone on the culture. The challenge of writing such an important book, with such an enticing title, is enormous. Brook and Watkins, who deserve credit for making the effort, rise to it with mixed results.

 


 

Keith Weiner is a technology entrepreneur and president of the Gold Standard Institute USA. He is founder of DiamondWare, a Voice Over Internet Protocol software company, which he sold to Nortel in 2008. He is an Objectivist who earned his PhD with a focus on monetary science from the New Austrian School of Economics. Weiner currently trades and analyzes precious metals and commodities. He lives with his wife in Arizona.



 

 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 


 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA

   
 

3 Responses to “Book Review: Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government”

  • Mark Humphrey:

    Keith: I haven’t rejected the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand, which I understand clearly and embrace warmly. I reject the nonsense of the Ayn Rand Institute, which promotes foreign policy prescriptions that contradict Rand’s ethical-political ideas and are warmed over neo-conservatism.

    Ultimately, a military intervention is either aggressive or defensive in nature. Clearly, a defensive intervention is one that directly repels an act of aggression committed against American citizens within the boundaries of the United States. An aggressive military intervention is one that, whatever its official rationalization, directs coercive power and violence against people whose government is NOT engaged in specific aggressive acts against the lives and properties of US citizens.

    So in the case of the two invasions of Iraq, by Bush I and Bush II, there was no act of aggression by the Iraqi government against Americans. In fact, the official rationalization for both invasions was constantly reinvented by the politicians in charge, who were understandably reluctant to admit their true agendas for invasion.

    Thinkers at the Ayn Rand Institute don’t consider these invasions to be aggressive. But the invasions were certainly aggressive to foreign people, who lost their lives or loved ones to the US armed assault, who were maimed, traumatized and impoverished by the “liberation”. Those invasions were aggressive to US citizens forced (at the point of a gun) to pay staggering war costs in lives and hard earned wealth.

    Incidentally, the idea that the Ayn Rand Institute faithfully represents Rand’s thinking about foreign policy is a canard. Rand was highly skeptical about the ethical-political legitimacy of American involvement in World War Two. War lovers at the Ayn Rand Institute and elsewhere regard US prosecution of WWII as perhaps the greatest achievement of Americans in the Twentieth Century, and the proper ethical-political model for American foreign policy.

    The subject of your essay was why Rand’s ideas do not receive the widespread acceptance that they deserve. The Ayn Rand Institute’s promotion of aggressive wars as somehow consistent with Rand’s ethical individualism is an obvious reason her ideas do not gain traction.

  • Mark Humphrey:

    Certainly cultural resistance plays a major role in attempts to persuade people to look at Rand’s ethical ideas. But there is another big problem caused by writers such as Brooks and the stable of thinkers residing at the Ayn Rand Institute. The problem is these thinkers are trying to sell people a gigantic ethical contradiction in the name of logical coherence.

    The contradiction is this. On one hand, the Ayn Rand Institute people insist that people have a birth right to live for themselves, and so “A moral defense of the profit motive would have to say that living as a trader, for your own happiness and by your own effort, is noble.” But on the other hand, they argue that people must be sacrificed en masse to the supposed virtue of American foreign wars of “national liberation”–wars that any sensible person can see are aggressive rather than defensive in nature.

    And so, the Ayn Rand Institute people pound the table arguing that Americans must be forced to fund and fight endless foreign interventions, not in the name of repelling attackers, but in the name of upholding the values of “democracy”, “civilization”, and “freedom” and to overthrow whomever happens to be the Thug-of-the-Month abroad. As a consequence, Americans lose their freedom to the national security state, stagger under the burdens of rampant government spending, and sacrifice sons and husbands to endless non-defensive wars and “military interventions”.

    What thinking person could take seriously ethical arguments that uphold such profound and blatant contradictions?

    • Keith Weiner:

      Mark: without going into too much depth here, let me respond on a few points.

      1) It is the fallacy known as “argumentum ad homimen” to reject Ayn Rand’s ideas in ethics, on grounds that the Ayn Rand Institute promotes something inconsistent with them. If ARI’s position was inconsistent with Objectivism, then one should reject ARI.

      2) The Ayn Rand Institute is not calling for sacrifice of people, national liberation, aggressive wars, forcing people to fund and fight wars … much less “democracy” or the security state.

      3) We are today offered a false alternative between (A) endless wars to “give” “democracy” to benighted countries … vs … (B) pacifism and appeasement. The Ayn Rand Institute is saying this is a false alternative, and that the USA must identify the proper foreign policy.

      I do not wish to debate foreign policy as that would be inappropriate in this forum, and my personal mission is to promote sound economics and sound money. I reviewed the book because it is primarily about economics and it touches on the gold standard.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • No results available

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment

j9TJzzN

The Review Insider

Archive

Dog Blow

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

Mish Talk

     
    Buy Silver Now!
     
    Buy Gold Now!