Economically Ambidextrous
Economists and politicians remain heavily divided between two major schools that represent fundamentally different points of view in how cities, nations and even the global economy should be run.
Since pioneering the notion of political economics in the 18th century, traditionalist right-wingers (often classical economists) have followed Adam Smiths notion of an ‘invisible hand’ guiding the market to efficient outcomes. The ‘invisible hand’ basically assumes that individuals are acting rationally, and in aggregate the sum of these individuals decisions will lead an economy to produce and distribute goods efficiently. Right-wingers often take a strict stance on government intervention believing this interference distorts an economic landscape. This, in a right-wingers mind will result in what economists have termed a ‘deadweight loss’ to society. Characterized by a survival of the fittest mindset and the goal of pure economic freedom, traditionalists believe less in equality than in the ability to succeed.
On the other extreme, due to increased awareness of the marked differences between inter and intra-nation inequalities left-wingers are often seen as ‘progressive’ and pursuing equality. Left-wingers believe that the government’s role of redistributing tax revenue is fair because it will lead the government and individuals to perform services in the public interest. These services that the government performs are often assumed to lack the financial incentive (profit) that individuals acting rationally would pursue on their own. Financing infrastructure creation and the role government’s play in regulating health care or education suggest a clear influence of government agencies in the modern economy.
These stark differences between two economic and political schools have created a large amount of tension amongst scholars and citizens alike. The fundamental differences in policymaking and general mindset are highly visible. Elections are a prime example in which the lay viewer may feel the candidates from respective parties (democratic vs. republican or liberal vs. conservative) are speaking entirely different languages! These differences create frictional arguments that lead to further separation.
I’ve found that hands serve as an excellent metaphor explaining how our political system actually leads to less moderate beliefs over time. As party members argue their viewpoint more and more, they become increasingly right/left hand dominant. Unfortunately, this can lead to total neglect of the other hand (political school) even if the other side is crying out for justifiable change.
Although these fundamental differences tend to propagate, I remain optimistic that individuals will learn to practice with ‘both hands.’ Being able to emphasize the other party’s point of view could lead to more mutual understandings and a better ability for our government to either intervene or take a step back. Therefore I believe the next step in advancing political economics is to become a little more ambidextrous.
