macro or micro economics

Our neighbors Judy and Liz, who are great neighbors :) , are sharing NETFLIX with us. Recently I watched the first half of Commanding Heights a PBS documentary about views of the world economy. It presented the history of economic thought as basically pertaining to one of two schools: Keynesian or Hayekian economics. In practical terms, we are talking, the Marshall Plan versus Reaganomics.
The basic dichotomy may be a little simplistic, and not being versed in economic theory myself, I have little ability to judge this choice of the filmmakers. However, what I found interesting is the association of the Christian religion with one school or the other. Here in America, many Evangelical Christians have connected free-market economics with Jesus' teaching based on 1 or 2 parables (i.e. the Parable of the Talents--apparently George Bush and Don Evan's favorite). By the way, I just finished reading Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, (thanks, Jessica) in which his Supply-Side Jesus is absolutely hilarious. However, in Great Britain, and elsewhere in the world, a Christian Socialist is considered by many to be the only variety of Christian.
Anyways, the idea that God is some kind of celestial economist hashing out financial policy from heaven is one that I find slightly scurrilous. However, the idea that one can claim to be a Christian, and completely ignore societal morality is equally wrong.
I know that many kBs have been spilt discussing the future of the Democratic party, so I would like to suggest my new formulation, and it is even alliterated for the sake of mnemonics. The idea is the Moral Marketplace. This is of course, based not so much on Keynes' ideas, but more, I have to admit on Hayek's. However, the idea being, that the market is not as much an idea as a reality. The basis of the market is the concept of value. Human beings cannot seem to exist without a values system. Even those who are accused of engaging in "moral relativism" are expressing the value that right and wrong are less fixed, but still just as real. How can morality be relative if it does not exist?
Anyways, if you accept that the concept of value is intrinsic to human beings, then, I believe you have to accept that the concept of a value exchange is also intrinsic. For instance, saying that a pound of butter is worth a sack of potatoes, or saying a Ryne Sandberg rookie card is worth a mint box of Cracker Jacks reflects this basic reality. However, if one takes the concept of value exchange as a given, it does not need to absolutely morally good, as suggested by the present administration after the fall of Enron (i.e. Enron went bankrupt, Q.E.D. capitilism has punished the evildoers.)
For instance, the fact that the rain falls upon the just and the unjust alike is, I would suggest a given for anyone who acknowledges the existance of the physical universe. However, saying that this always good or always bad would be highly questionable for most people. Let's say that you are out on a picnic--having rain fall on your head might be considered by most to be bad. However, let's say that you are a farmer living through a drought in the same area, you might think that rainfall is a good thing. However, let's take it one step further--if you are living in S. California, and you are experiencing a drought, so much so that your lawn and garden is brown and dead, having your house completely flattened by a mudslide might be considered bad.
Therefore, we can affirm that factual absolutes in the real world need not correspond with moral absolutes. Thus the fact that value exchange is an intrinsicly human concept, does not mean that value exchange is always good. For instance, if someone uses their salary to buy groceries and pay their rent, we might consider this to be "good." However, if someone uses that same salary on blow, crank, or any other psychotropic drug or narcotic, we might consider this to be "bad." Also, if there was someone who had to work two jobs just to pay for the rent on his apartment, and another gentleman who had never really worked a day in his life who had three houses and a beachfront condo in Tahiti, we might consider this situation to be "bad" or at very least "unfair."
Now, one cannot stop the rain from falling from heaven, just as equally as one cannot stop value exchanges between two or more people from happening. However, one can build a lean-to, or even a modestly-sized home, to keep the rain from falling on one's head. One can also choose carefully where or how to buy or build a house, so that it is not subject to mudslides or floods. Just the same, one can make rules to be enforced by some empowered government body to keep the worst excesses of the marketplace from happening.
As George W. Bush has noted, one thing the government is really good at is "punishing evildoers," therefore, I would suggest that a Moral Marketplace, is such a place where employers are encouraged and punished to and for doing the right or wrong thing. Also, when it goes beyond the ability of employers to do the right thing, such as provide health insurance at a reasonable cost to their employees, the government should step in and take that responsibility. This does not mean that we need big government, it means that we need responsible government.
T.J. once told us that "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." However, I would suggest that T.J. is wrong. The only thing that I think T.J. really did right was to buy Louisiana, and to write the Declaration of Independence (I even have some quarrels with the language he used therein). For instance, I am not all that thrilled about UVa, having been an off and on student there for the last few years.
Also, this is the man that gutted the U.S. Navy right when we had possibly the greatest naval threat to our nation's very existence that we ever faced. He made the nation suffer through a disastrous trade embargo, which bankrupt many of our citizens, and as the governor of Virginia, presided over the burning of the capital, Richmond, by British Troops. Also, he was an absolute failure in his personal business, dying a debtor; his slaves all had to be auctioned down the river to pay for his very undisciplined personal lifestyle. On top of all these failures, Thomas Jefferson is the one man who had any reasonable chance of leading a successful movement for abolition before the Civil War. The fact that he choose not to do this, I believe, is a great moral failure.
Anyways, back to T.J.'s original quote, I believe that it should read, "The government is best which governs most wisely, because it advocates for the needs and wants of its citizenry." Ideology (small government) is what got the Sage of Monticello into trouble with respect to his embargo and slavery. And his most successful act as president, the Louisiana purchase, flew into the face of his small government ideology.
Therefore, I believe the argument should not be on the ideological grounds "big government" versus "small government" but rather "smart government" versus "dumb government" or possibly versus a "dumb president."
God bless America.