John Kay, writing in the Financial Times ($), takes issue with Michael Levin’s piece on Christmas Movies and Bad Economics. Reading the article on the FinTimes site requires a subscription, but the same piece appears on Kay’s own site.
Kay writes: “Not everyone likes Miracle on 34th Street. Certainly not the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a conservative economic think-tank. In a commentary in 1995, the institute excoriates Christmas films, particularly Miracle on 34th Street, as ‘unfriendly to free enterprise.’ It is especially critical of Santa’s readiness to put children’s happiness before his employer’s interests. ‘By selling as hard as it can, Macy’s gives children more of what they want.’ Not quite: more of what Macy’s cynically hopes they want.”
Kay responds: “’Take a buck’ is ultimately an unsuccessful policy, since it undermines the relationships with customers on which prosperity depends.”
Actually, it’s not clear there is much a fundamental disagreement here (other than to point out at the “conservative” is not a description Mises or any Austrian would accept). Re-reading Levin, it is clear that Levin is arguing with the film’s tendency to drive a wedge between the desire for profits and the desire of social good, whereas the liberal tradition argues they are not at odds—the same point that Kay seems to be making.
Kay is also wrong to say that the Mises Institute cheered during the 1990s as traders urged investors to buy Enron and WorldCom. As one example among many, see Jeff Scott from the Free Market February 1998 “Is the Market Too Big To Drop?.” The opening sentence: “It’s time to start thinking of the stock market as a giant S&L.”
