I am writing a pro/con article in which I am defending of capitalism and free markets, which are constantly blamed in my school (largest school in New York outside of NYC) for our financial collapse.
Any hints? Any passages I should add in my article?
Well, there are probably three routes that I might take.
The first is to take the efficacy route and argue how the free market does everything correctly and more efficiently. Secondly, you could establish the principles of a belief in the free market and why socialism is morally wrong. Given that your audience is likely to be both unprincipled and intellectually lazy, this might not be a good idea. Finally, you could use the financial problem that we're facing and explain its real causes and effects as a method of showing how unintended consequences always exist.
Now, are you supposed to take the pro-free market position or are you supposed to "even-handedly" treat capitalism, by writing of both sides?
I am writing this article in opposition to the leader of my school's Club Action (essentially, Young Democrats and Socialists). My article is solely in the defense of free market capitalism. And although the majority of the audience will be intellectually lazy, I have no intention in "dumbing down" this article.
While she has many of her favorite teachers (one a Keynesian and the other a Marxist) at her disposal for hints and guidelines, I have the Mises Institute.
I would prefer to do a combination of route two and three. Any information you could provide would help.
Probably the best approach would be to explain why the current failure can not be attributed to the "free market." This is, obviously, because the market is not free. It might be more free than many (or even all) other markets in the world, but that doesn't make it free.
FWIW, arguing from efficacy is not a good idea, and I would avoid taking that stance (or getting sucked into that argument) at all costs, not because we can't win it, but because A) efficiency is also subjective and B) it doesn't matter how efficient something is, if it's also immoral.
I assume you're going to focus on the financial sector, since that seems to be the bulk of the problem. The financial sector is one of (if not the) most heavily regulated, closely scrutinized, monitored, overseen, and manipulated sectors in the global economy. For Christ's sake, it is an open and notorious objective of every central bank and central banker, to manipulate interest rates.
In Smart People Are Realizing the Banking System is Broken, I wrote:
There is no free market philosophy in the current administration, nor is there a free market philosophy in any administration which seeks to impose systematic, top-down controls on the entire economy. A free market abhors the idea of nationalizing industry, of bailing out lenders, too big to fail. The free market did not cause the current economic Vesuvius, because the U.S. economy is not a free market.
The manipulation of interest rates affects the prices of everything. And these distortions are what eventually build up and cause economic collapse. Eventually the distortions cannot be compensated for, cannot be reconciled.
Do you have a draft? Or are you just brainstorming? I'd be happy to offer some criticisms/advice/edits if you have a copy you could send to me.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/15/gods-that-fail/
This might help, too.
http://mises.org/story/3165
this is my favourite article on the topic, George Reisman
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring