Economists often complain that no one takes their advice, yet it is difficult to think of a field as riven by disagreement as the ‘dismal science.’ Adam Smith and Karl Marx may have shared the labor theory of value, but they promoted entirely different approaches to problems of production and consumption.
Thank you for writing this article. I'm a huge fan of Iain McGilchrist and just finished writing my own analysis of his work as it pertains to architecture, but I was an Econ minor in college and have a huge interest in Economics, as well. I believe a lot of the issues we see in architecture are deeply related to the economics of today, too.
In his book, McGilchrist is no fan of modern-day capitalism, which I had to come to grips with. (The book took me on a deep soul-searching quest.) However, the question that always remains for me is: then what economic system is best? I don't know if anyone has "the" answer, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it after reading this post.
It seems to me that it has to be something decentralised, where people are allowed to make choices based on the reality on the ground (and not "sculpted" -- as far as possible -- by bureaucracy. The goal of government, I would think, would be to safeguard people's rights to act.) But that to me sounds very much like the free market (which, previously, I pretty much took as a synonym for capitalism -- but now I wonder what the real differences are. Access to debt?)
Anyways, I'm rambling, but since you're a McGilchrist fan, I thought I'd ask your thoughts. :)
Thank you so much for reading! McGilchrist changed my life too. I started out as a pretty ideological libertarian and so his critiques also bugged me...but of course he's mostly right. If you're interested in similar critiques, I can recommend Roger Scruton as well.
To answer your question, I think that if we're allowed to be a bit idealistic, then distributism sounds great — not necessarily as a political program, but as a moral ideal. In distributism, property rights are secure but things are produced as locally as possible. (Distributism has been a big part of Catholic social teaching since the late 1800s.)
When I first came across it, it sounded too idealistic and vague to work. Who decides what is "local" and not? etc. etc. But I think the problem was that I was thinking of it as a policy proposal, whereas now I take it more as good moral advice. My relationships with my grocers, farmers, bakers, etc. may not reduce the price of my groceries (although at times, they have), but they are good for my soul.
I suppose that at the policy level, you could draw a lot of policy conclusions from the distributist ideal. For instance, politicians shouldn't stack the cards against local production, and they should weigh the consequences of outsourcing as they consider trade and tax policies.
That's vague I know, but thanks to McGilchrist I'm more comfortable supporting policies that aren't perfectly, rationally defined in some totalizing way — and I think liberalism has a tendency to totalizing logic that worries me.
Yup -- makes total sense. When I've previously asked this question, distributism has come up before. I need to take a deeper look into it, it seems. I like your points about not having to have a perfectly rationalized answer, too. Something to think about.
Regarding politicians and government, I have definitely come to the conclusion that government meddling significantly in the market is a net bad (at least from my observations). I do think there's a place for it (like common-sense regulation, per se), but that sweeping corporatism we see these days with the collusion between government and business is the source of many of our ills today, I think.
I'm definitely a localist now, as well. And a proponent that there's more to our lives than the cheapest price, and that those things need to be more greatly considered. "For my soul," as you say.
Scruton has also been recommended to me. I need to get reading!
Cool! I agree that corporatism is the problem, and that it leads inexorably to corruption. On the other hand, I think the market has eroded a lot of the local orders that are necessary for the good life. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you're into lectures, YouTube has a treasure trove of Scruton lectures and many rival anything I saw in my philosophy program. Here's a great one on Ropke's "Human Economy" — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VydFFs6pb6A
I think this blog published a transcript of the speech if you prefer reading:
If you travel to economics departments, first---I hope you're okay, second---you'll find that many of them are located in brutalist buildings.
I used to think that perhaps this tendency was some grand nod to the shared values by both brutalist idealist schools and early contemporary economics of human rationality and cold calculation.
While I'm still very warm to this thought, I think to day it might have more to do simply with the overlap of Brutalism and the rise of contemporary economics.
Thank you! Brutalism never ceases to shock me. I live in Prague and the outskirts of the city are almost entirely composed of brutalist panel buildings that have been repainted in an attempt to make them less depressing. I think you could write a fun paper on the connection between economics and brutalism if you ever get the time.
Oh -- fascinating observation. I'm currently doing a deep dive into architecture (why it has gotten so ugly in modern times), but my next frontier is regarding economics, so I really love this comment. There's certainly a historical overlap of Brutalism and the rise of contemporary economics, but I think that's no accident: they are rooted in the same ideals and story. One is a visual representation of that ideology, the other is an intellectualized pursuit of that ideal.
Thank you for writing this article. I'm a huge fan of Iain McGilchrist and just finished writing my own analysis of his work as it pertains to architecture, but I was an Econ minor in college and have a huge interest in Economics, as well. I believe a lot of the issues we see in architecture are deeply related to the economics of today, too.
In his book, McGilchrist is no fan of modern-day capitalism, which I had to come to grips with. (The book took me on a deep soul-searching quest.) However, the question that always remains for me is: then what economic system is best? I don't know if anyone has "the" answer, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it after reading this post.
It seems to me that it has to be something decentralised, where people are allowed to make choices based on the reality on the ground (and not "sculpted" -- as far as possible -- by bureaucracy. The goal of government, I would think, would be to safeguard people's rights to act.) But that to me sounds very much like the free market (which, previously, I pretty much took as a synonym for capitalism -- but now I wonder what the real differences are. Access to debt?)
Anyways, I'm rambling, but since you're a McGilchrist fan, I thought I'd ask your thoughts. :)
Thank you so much for reading! McGilchrist changed my life too. I started out as a pretty ideological libertarian and so his critiques also bugged me...but of course he's mostly right. If you're interested in similar critiques, I can recommend Roger Scruton as well.
To answer your question, I think that if we're allowed to be a bit idealistic, then distributism sounds great — not necessarily as a political program, but as a moral ideal. In distributism, property rights are secure but things are produced as locally as possible. (Distributism has been a big part of Catholic social teaching since the late 1800s.)
When I first came across it, it sounded too idealistic and vague to work. Who decides what is "local" and not? etc. etc. But I think the problem was that I was thinking of it as a policy proposal, whereas now I take it more as good moral advice. My relationships with my grocers, farmers, bakers, etc. may not reduce the price of my groceries (although at times, they have), but they are good for my soul.
I suppose that at the policy level, you could draw a lot of policy conclusions from the distributist ideal. For instance, politicians shouldn't stack the cards against local production, and they should weigh the consequences of outsourcing as they consider trade and tax policies.
That's vague I know, but thanks to McGilchrist I'm more comfortable supporting policies that aren't perfectly, rationally defined in some totalizing way — and I think liberalism has a tendency to totalizing logic that worries me.
Does that make any sense?
Yup -- makes total sense. When I've previously asked this question, distributism has come up before. I need to take a deeper look into it, it seems. I like your points about not having to have a perfectly rationalized answer, too. Something to think about.
Regarding politicians and government, I have definitely come to the conclusion that government meddling significantly in the market is a net bad (at least from my observations). I do think there's a place for it (like common-sense regulation, per se), but that sweeping corporatism we see these days with the collusion between government and business is the source of many of our ills today, I think.
I'm definitely a localist now, as well. And a proponent that there's more to our lives than the cheapest price, and that those things need to be more greatly considered. "For my soul," as you say.
Scruton has also been recommended to me. I need to get reading!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Cool! I agree that corporatism is the problem, and that it leads inexorably to corruption. On the other hand, I think the market has eroded a lot of the local orders that are necessary for the good life. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you're into lectures, YouTube has a treasure trove of Scruton lectures and many rival anything I saw in my philosophy program. Here's a great one on Ropke's "Human Economy" — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VydFFs6pb6A
I think this blog published a transcript of the speech if you prefer reading:
https://matiane.wordpress.com/2021/03/28/journey-home-wilhelm-ropke-and-the-humane-economy-by-roger-scruton/
Thanks again for reading :)
Wonderful — I will check these out. Thanks!
Fascinating writeup!
If you travel to economics departments, first---I hope you're okay, second---you'll find that many of them are located in brutalist buildings.
I used to think that perhaps this tendency was some grand nod to the shared values by both brutalist idealist schools and early contemporary economics of human rationality and cold calculation.
While I'm still very warm to this thought, I think to day it might have more to do simply with the overlap of Brutalism and the rise of contemporary economics.
Thank you! Brutalism never ceases to shock me. I live in Prague and the outskirts of the city are almost entirely composed of brutalist panel buildings that have been repainted in an attempt to make them less depressing. I think you could write a fun paper on the connection between economics and brutalism if you ever get the time.
Oh -- fascinating observation. I'm currently doing a deep dive into architecture (why it has gotten so ugly in modern times), but my next frontier is regarding economics, so I really love this comment. There's certainly a historical overlap of Brutalism and the rise of contemporary economics, but I think that's no accident: they are rooted in the same ideals and story. One is a visual representation of that ideology, the other is an intellectualized pursuit of that ideal.