I should start with the kindest of requests. People, please stop giving boring seminars!We all agree that your work is not so why should your talks be?
What I am really complaining about is not the talks themselves but their most prominent side-effect. The things I read in the paper (and that would be the newspaper) after choosing not to pay attention to the talk anymore. And I can assure you that lately I read pieces by well-respected people that really put my normal cool under severe stress.
The last of this patience-testing articles was a piece by well-estimated Paul Kennedy in today's "El Pais". Paul Kennedy is a well known history professor at Yale, specialized in political economy and history of the 20th century. But unfortunately for him and even more for my already-suffering temper, the subject he chose to write about in today's article was one that really gets on my nerves: the piece dealt with the so-called "freedom of the markets"!
The whole article was centered around the obvious antithesis between strong state-control of the economy and the over-preached gospel of the freedom of the market, free enterprise and the such. Only to make it "catchier" Prof. Kennedy decided to personify the two poles. In place of the liberal-economical preacher he placed the famous Adam Smith and as representative of the fierce, backward state-controlers, Kennedy choose the infamous Hugo Chavez. The debate was set upon uneven grounds.
Adam Smith is the Scotch writer of the "Wealth of the Nations", who lived back in the late 1700 and was the first ever to introduce the also famous "invisible hand" of the market. No more, no less Smith is considered to be the father of political economy (that is liberal political economy) and according to his views (older than the telegraph or even the pony-express but somehow still enduring) private enterprise should remain totally un-controlled by whichever state authority in order for the prosperity of the nation to be achieved. That is on the basis that human beings are so intelligent and ingenious that they will best achieve their goals without the interference of the state.
The above -roughly and a bit un-scientifically expressed- theory has been surprisingly governing the economies of our societies ever since Smith's times. But maybe this is not so surprising since, in fact, what is really happening is that the same laws of the jungle imposed in our distant evolutionary past and retained throughout modern times until the occurrence of Smith's "genious" are STILL active. The main difference is that what in ancient Babylon was considered the right of Kings is now under scientific proof the "safest way to development", or that the visible hand of the landowners of the Roman empire or the Medieval feudarchs has been replaced by the "invisible hand" of the market.
This is the basis of Smith's theory.And keep in mind that the above over-simplification omits to address the issue of the possible implications the "wealth of a nation" may have on that of another.
Let me put it straight! I do not believe in invisible hands! Self-organization, some might say, exists in many systems. But all these systems have one common, defining attribute: they are self-cooperative. Markets on the other hand, we are taught -and this may probably be the only true thing we are taught about them- are by definition the exact opposite of co-operative. They are competitive. Thus to believe that the prosperity of the nation will be magically shaped by the self-organized combination of the cunning plans of private entrepreneurs and their even more ruthless applications is as absurd as to expect that tomorrow morning, we will ALL arrive at work earlier than usual if we just switch off all traffic lights, just because WE ALL WANT TO!
Seriously, I find it hard to believe, how an idea so naive, a theory so unfounded, an argumentation so flawed, came to form one of the most stable pillars of modern civilization, even more, one that appears to be so uncontested and non-negotiable. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that Paul Kennedy, apparently a wise and intelligent man, chose to be the advocate of Adam Smith in this "ideological confrontation" with a "populist", "leftist", "radical" leader such as Hugo Chavez. In case you have not realized it yet, the words in quotation above have nowadays a profound negative meaning.
This brings us to this "populist", "leftist" and "radical" guy, surrounded by a cabinet "getting more radical every day",that has managed to be elected in fair elections 8 times over the last seven years. Which comes as yet another proof of the fact that majorities are not to be trusted, especially when their -visible- hands cast votes in favour of "populists" who promise to try to improve their welfare and God forbid actually do so!
Chavez' "radical" policy has aimed to improve the quality of life of the average Venezuelan and has managed to do so, although not to the degree desired by himself. This, however, and according to Adam Smith and his followers, does not necessarily mean prosperity, especially when it is not reflected in the country's stock market. Thus, according to our Yale professor, Venezuela is not more prosperous and it won't be so, if the children get better health-care, or all go to school and have proper education, as long as their country does not appear appealing to foreign, international investors. Considering the benefits people all over Latin America are enjoying thanks to international investors and the profound impact the investments of the latter had in the development of these countries, allow me to sincerely doubt it!
The time had passed and the talk was coming to an end and so was the article when I reached the most obscene part of it, wisely reserved for a glorious finishing. Rhetorically asking himself if Chavez had ever read the Smith's "Wealth of Nation" and once having spontaneously reached the conclusion that he wouldn't be able to understand it, Kennedy suggests that someone sent to Chavez and his cabinet one of Aesope's myths "The golden egg-laying hen" which he assures us NOT only Chavez but "even his voters in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas" would be able to understand!
There you have it then! A Yale professor of history so wise and educated to be citing Adam Smith in the 21st century, comes to mock the large majority of a whole people, explicitly stating that they are just so dumb that not only they cannot understand Smith's ideas or modern economical theories (that are actually 250 years old) but are actually unable to perceive whether or not their life has improved or if their nation is prosperous.
So fortunately for them, HE KNOWS BETTER.
The talk ends, I hear the applause, throw the paper in the garbage bin and go back in front my computer.
If such are the views of the "director of the International Security Studies Institute of Yale" let me first be worried about Yale, then worried about our "security" and then about "studies" in general.
