The Next Michael Moore?

George Leef

The Chronicle Review has a scurrilous piece by one Charles Ferguson, who is a documentary film director. His targets are 1) Larry Summers; 2) academic economists generally; and 3) anything that suggests the virtue of laissez-faire economic thinking.

Ferguson would have you believe that large numbers of academic economists are cashing in on ties to businesses, ties that are enhanced by their advocacy of "deregulation." He claims that laissez-faire demonically took hold of American economic policy back in the 1980s, and blames people like Summers for allowing the recent economic debacle because of their self-interest in unfettered capitalism.

I am no fan of Larry Summers, but it's a hatchet job to suggest that he made policy decisions while serving in government because he calculated that they would put money in his pockets. It's also wildly mistaken to say that Summers or any of the other economists Ferguson attacks are laissez-faire advocates. (That's on a par with saying that Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire advocate.) They have advocated minor deregulation in some aspects, but that is light years from a return to laissez-faire such as Murray Rothbard advocated.

Moreover, Ferguson focuses on a few tiny bits of deregulation while overlooking the elephant in the room: federal policies that vigorously promoted foolish lending. Most politicians wanted to push housing and crushed those who spoke up, such as officials at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight who were threatened with budget cuts if they persisted in questioning the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. No amount of government regulation was going to stop the housing expansion as long as it was paying political benefits.

Ferguson dislikes the fact that some professors (very few, but indeed some) make money by selling their expertise, but the irony is that the very laissez-faire he portrays as the villain is the antidote to that. In an economy where the government has no power to dispense favors to interest groups, there would be little or no money to be made in writing briefs and peddling influence.

  • Share

Most Commented

October 31, 2023


University of Washington Violated Non-Discrimination Policy, Internal Report Finds

A faculty hiring committee at the University of Washington “inappropriately considered candidates’ races when determining the order of offers,” provided “disparate op......

January 24, 2024


After Claudine

The idea has caught on that the radical left overplayed its hand in DEI and is now vulnerable to those of us who seek major reforms. This is not, however, the first time that the a......

December 9, 2023


The Presidents and Academic Freedom

What are the boundaries of “free speech?” They are pretty much the same as the boundaries of civilization. Savages need not apply....

Most Read

May 15, 2015


Where Did We Get the Idea That Only White People Can Be Racist?

A look at the double standard that has arisen regarding racism, illustrated recently by the reaction to a black professor's biased comments on Twitter....

October 12, 2010


Ask a Scholar: What is the True Definition of Latino?

What does it mean to be Latino? Are only Latin American people Latino, or does the term apply to anyone whose language derived from Latin?...

September 21, 2010


Ask a Scholar: What Does YHWH Elohim Mean?

A reader asks, "If Elohim refers to multiple 'gods,' then Yhwh Elohim really means Lord of Gods...the one of many, right?" A Hebrew expert answers....