Censorship in the Blogosphere

I had one of my comments removed from a discussion yesterday. This is not the first time, but it is part of a pattern I want to draw attention to.

Lately I've been spending more time on blogs run by economists. This fits in with my preference to discuss policy matters rather than the political events of the day, and I think it is especially important at this time because there seems to be a swing in what the prevailing economic viewpoint is. This will have great importance if the Dems win political control in 2008.

Some background

The prevailing theory being used in government these days is usually called "trickle-down", "supply-side" or "free-market" economics. One of its core beliefs is that cutting taxes increases economic activity so much that the government actually has more revenue. This is factually false, but by selective use of data the proponents manage to keep the idea alive, especially among the Libertarians who hate all taxes.

The alternative theory, which is held by the vast majority of economists, doesn't have a catch phrase, but the basic idea is that government is needed to regulate markets since they don't perform properly when left to themselves. A perfect example can be seen in the current mortgage mess. The new mortgage loans were created without any government oversight or control. As a result there has been excessive speculation as well as outright fraud and misrepresentation. This pattern has been repeated over and over. Each time the markets "fail" government is forced to step in and create new regulations. The worst case in recent memory was, of course, the crash of 1929. The "free-market" types usually manage to prevent action before the disaster hits so we never get to the point where we can prevent such events.

Now what does all this have to do with being censored?

Academic economics, and many pundits in the press, like to think they are engaged in a battle of ideas. I say X and you say Y and then we debate and the best idea survives. This is an illusion. Those on "left" are not battling ideas of the "right" they are battling a group which is (mostly secretly) funded by a small group of super wealthy individuals and families. This group provides the money to keep the supply-side movement going. There are no Libertarian movements in other industrialized countries, because there is not an equivalent group of the wealthy to fund the effort.

So my mission has been to call attention to the fact that those promoting these free-market ideas are not the impartial scholars they would like people to believe. If you are being paid to put forward a certain point of view this should be known so that your listeners can judge for themselves whether your arguments are impartial. In the case of Libertarianism the movement is primarily kept alive by a single person, Charles Koch, and a few colleagues who chip in from time to time. He has been behind the creation of the CATO Institute as well as setting up the economics department at George Mason University.

The blog I was censored on is run by two professors at GMU. They, of course, claim that they come by their ideas honestly and not because they owe their livelihood to espousing them. I'm prepared to believe them, but in that case instead of being shills they are either naive or self-delusional. They got their education at GMU and got hired just because of their outlook, not because of any exceptional accomplishments in their field.

One of the characteristics of right wing thought, including Libertarianism, is that the proponents don't really trust democracy. They "know" they have the right answer to things and thus prefer an autocratic structure. This also makes them intolerant of dissent. In this case criticizing these professors on their own site can be seen as intolerable. The last thing they want is for the acolytes who populate such sites to start questioning the motives of the leaders. They also don't want to risk any condemnation from their sponsor.

If you are interested is some evidence as to how big money has been controlling the intellectual debate over the past 40 years I offer you two references. The first is a study showing how just 18 super wealthy families have been the force behind the effort to repeal the estate tax. The Koch family is a member of the group as well as the Waltons, owners of Walmart.

Estate Tax Report (PDF)

The second is a summary of the connections that I found between the Koch family and the GMU faculty and several other Libertarian organizations:

How to "Buy" a University

The moral of this story is that we are not engaged in a fair fight over ideas. One side is using money to buy respectability and political support, the other is trying to counter with logic. Money and power always wins.