I have been scratching my head as to why the mainstream news
media has seemed to lionize George Mason professor Tyler Cowen over the past
few years. It seems that everywhere you turn—Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Newsweek, New Republic—you can
see an article by Cowen.
Stupid me, I just wasn’t digging deep enough into Cowen’s
professional background. I want to thank Twitter follower Alan Parker for his
tweet to me that states flatly that the Koch Brothers “bought and paid for” the
university at which Cowen teaches, the ostensibly public George Mason
University.
As it turns out, “bought and paid for” is not entirely
hyperbolic: Koch gave $30 million to George Mason in the mid-80’s (roughly $66
million today) and in return, George Mason took over a right-wing think tank
now called the Mercatus Center. The Kochs, and other ultra-rich ultra-rights,
continue to fund Mercatus, which means “market” in Latin.
The Center comprises more than 70 professors and an
additional staff of more than 50, all dedicated to churning out research and
reports that “advances knowledge about how markets work to improve
people’s lives,” as the Mercatus mission statement puts it. In other words, all
Mercatus work begins with the false premise that free markets can solve every
social and economic problem.
Here are some examples of untrue assertions
by Mercatus scholars:
·
Three years ago, Charles Blahous infamously
predicted that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) would
worsen federal deficits. In reality, ACA has saved more money than was originally
anticipated.
·
As I have reported on OpEdge, Tyler Cowen
continually argues for a deregulated free market by focusing on individuals and
ignoring large groups, as when he claims that workers have nothing to worry
about in the shared economy since a few of them will flourish economically or when
he states that because individual families gain and lose wealth over
generations inequality of wealth has not increased.
·
Richard Williams ridiculously compares trans
fats to water in an opinion article that appeared in The Orange County Times. Both are bad for you in large amounts, so
why ban trans fats from foods until we know for fact they bad for you in small
amounts. What a completely scurrilous analogy, especially considering that
50-75% of the body is water. Unlike trans fats, we have no reason to test to
determine whether water is inherently safe before we allow it to be consumed,
although we do demand tests that it be safe water! Just as we demand our food
be safe.
·
Four Mercatus scholars combined on a white paper
that asserts that consumer rating systems provide enough protections that Internet,
smart-phone and shared economy markets do not need consumer protections. The
paper calls for an end of consumer regulations, ignoring the fact that consumer
may not be aware of what safety or quality entails in a good or service.
Let’s take a look at a small excerpt of this last example of
Mercatus twisted reasoning to support a one hundred percent free market:
“Regulations…are not as effective as market
solutions, and may harm consumers instead of helping them. Regulators can be
influenced by regulated industries, erecting barriers to keep out new
competition, stifling innovation, and imposing higher prices and reduced
quality on consumers. By making it more difficult to do business, regulations
can have the unintended consequence of entrenching already-established
businesses while closing the market to entrepreneurs with innovative ideas.”
Pure rhetoric that we’ve heard from conservatives since
Congress passed the Pure Food & Drug Act of 1906. This standard rightwing
cant ignores the cost to individuals and societies when vendors sell
substandard goods. The public is willing to pay more for safety.
I’ve given just a few examples of bogus “analysis” and
“research” I found on the Mercatus website. There are literally hundreds of
published opinion and analysis pieces, white papers and books spewing out of
Mercatus “scholars” every year.
And who is the chair and general director of Mercatus?
Yes, you guessed it. It’s Tyler Cowen.
We have to wonder, then, whether there is a connection
between Cowen’s consistently weak arguments and the fact that he’s on the
payroll of Koch Industries?
Nothing would delight me more than making a case against
George Mason’s involvement with Mercatus, but they can’t censor these guys, and
plenty of scholars spin fantasies and garbage in the social sciences and
humanities; it even happens from time to time in the natural sciences. There is
nothing wrong with rich folk giving money for university research, as long as
the money is earmarked for answering questions and not asserting conclusions.
But what we have with Mercatus is rich folk paying for an elaborate academic
cover for a bunch of policies that hurt everyone but them.
I can make a good case against the mainstream media for
publishing the claptrap of Mercatus employees while pretty much ignoring the
solid research of legitimate scholars who either self-identify as progressives
or demonstrate progressive ideas. It just demonstrates that 1) the mainstream
media seek out research that will confirm their existing prejudices, even if
the research is suspect or ultimately financed by special interests; and 2) far
from being liberal as politicians often aver, the mainstream media are at best
centrist looking right.
No comments:
Post a Comment