FREE Insights Column
Gresham’s Law on the Internet
By John Baden, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, Guest Writer, 4-29-10
 | |
|
We’ve all heard the phrase, “Bad money drives good money out of circulation.” This is now called Gresham’s Law but it dates back to the ancient Greeks. What does this mean in practice and how might it be relevant to the internet and more generally to civility in our public discourse? First I’ll consider legal currency and then generalize to websites.
In the United States we have legal tender laws that require different forms of commodity money be accepted at face value for economic transactions. America debased its silver money in 1965. The Mint switched to cheaper metals as the value of silver in the coin exceeded its face value.
The commodity value of “bad money” is less than its face value. When circulating along with money with a higher commodity value, with both forms accepted at equal value as legal tender, debased money will displace the “good” money, that made of 80% real silver.
As a natural result, individuals hold onto the “old” American silver coins while the new ones are used in daily transactions. Last week I received a pre-1964 dime in change, the first real silver dime I’d seen in many years. And, of course, I kept it. That’s the way the world works. And it always will. Everywhere.
This is all quite obvious and predictable when considering coins. While hardly a perfect parallel, the same applies to social situations. Consider a restaurant traditionally frequented on Sundays by families who go there after church. As a mental experiment, assume that for some reason boisterous, uncouth, loud, and profane gang-bangers begin descending upon this restaurant prior to their pit-bull fights. You know the outcome. The churchgoers find another venue.
I suggest this also happens with websites. Gordon Crovitz recently wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?” He observed that “comment sections [are] so uncivilized and uninformative” and have become “wastelands of attacks and insults.” And, of course, he’s right. Here’s my example.
I knew the economist Milton Friedman for nearly 40 years. In addition to his scholarly, Nobel Prize winning prowess, he was one of the most principled and honest individuals I’ve known.
On the occasion of Milton’s 90th birthday I wrote a humorous column proposing that he be canonized upon completion of his third miracle. (He would be the first male Jewish saint.) Miraculously, two of his proposals have been enacted, the end of the military draft and the wide acceptance of school choice. The third, I suggested, would be the decriminalization of drugs.
Always a gentleman, Milton wrote thanking me. “I write simply to express my appreciation for your kind words, but do spare me sainthood.” I have my column with his response mounted on the wall of my study. Although we occasionally disagreed, I greatly admired him and respect his memory.
I recently wrote a column on NPR that was posted on the New West website. Uncle Milty wasn’t mentioned nor was there any reference to his ideas. Alas, someone responded with this: “Baden...merely bases his ideas of political economy on his hyper-libertarian ideology/theology—much like his idol: the mean-spirited, bloodthirsty, ‘malevolent dwarf,’ Milton Friedman.”
The individual who posted this comment demonstrates far more vitriol than understanding. I don’t care to participate in a forum with such mean spirited, ignorant, and vacuous venom. Hence, should it be posted, this is my last entry on the New West site.
John Baden is Chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), based in Bozeman, MT. Email him at jbaden@free-eco.org.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. Submit yours to editor@newwest.net.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The reaction to the FREE columns have had little to do with logic or rationality and everything to do with bias based on ignorance. It is a pity since you and Pete have something to offer at multiple levels.
For all anyone might know, some of Baden's worst critics might live across the way, or have other "issues" they are too spineless to express on their own hind legs. It might be hazardous to their Brooks Brothers real life -- ya know, like the Geico nitwit who is now moaning that his privacy was violated?
Agree or not, John puts his name on what he says, and is accountable to it.
We are aware that comment threads here have devolved, to say the very least. We've recently taken a heavier hand in moderating comments by shutting down threads that have gotten out of hand and banning repeat offenders.
Unfortunately, we simply don't have the time to police every thread so we're asking for the help of our readers. If this is indeed a community space, we need more people willing to make it a better place to discuss by piping up when someone is out of line and letting us know about it.
We've tried requiring registration to comment, but that all but shut everyone up. Short of that, there is no way to enforce using real names, etc. (And even then, that's not fool proof.) As you know, we're not alone in dealing with this issue and there is no silver bullet yet.
Even if there was one, the only true way to reform how this space is used is via community. So, step up and help us make this place a better place.
On one hand, I get attacked everytime I take a measure of cleaning up the threads and on the other hand, everyone complains about how bad the threads have gotten.
We're very open to ideas.
Courtney
I've been called racist, homophobe and a number of other names for voicing what I believed to be valid civil opinions. I've been offended by things others have said which they may have thought were acceptable.
We all seem to have a different idea of what respectful discourse is.
Thanks to Courtney for recognizing the problem and trying for continued improvement.
It sounds as though you have come up with a solution which will provide political correct postings--most of which will reek of hyper-libertarian ideology/theology, eh?
The Editor-Publisher finally decided he didn't want to be a hall monitor or ideological traffic cop any longer, or perhaps was getting some backdraft heat from whomever he answers to , so he instigated full registration, complete with asking people to divulge all kinds of personal info in" Required fields" and logging in each time with a unique password.
Comments fell to zero this week. Nada. Bye-bye discourse and opinion.
And frankly the flamethrower opinions at the Cody Enterprise were not nearly as bad as the norm elsewhere, but I guess the publisher's skin is too thin to take the heat or something. Decisions taken like this are almost always made with the threat of money or withholding money in Cody. Unlike you and yours, he's always been the Censor-in-Chief and kept a tight hand on the news and opinion valve which is typical of smalltown print newspapers who must face up to advertisers and church deacons, et al. Only it was always worse in Cody than most places. Or as I put it "Community journalism ...isn't". I'm only citing this instance as being typical. You could change the name from Cody to almost any other town that has online forums as an adjunct to their newspaper and probably make the same case. Conversely , some papers that SHOULD have open comment forums oddly enough do not, Such as the Jackson Hole News and Guide. I oft wonder about that. The other Jackson paper does allow chime-ins, bt they are not extensive, especially in a town of such high cultural and educational benchmarks. Go figure..
I cannot offer you a solution beyond the arduous time it takes to assertively moderate each comment and do a thumb's up- thumbs down Caesar ruling on allowing comments to pass. I guess printing a line or two from the offending comment, the sender's handle and possibly the IP address, and a short phrase on why it was rejected by you as a warning, might eventually set a new trend in civility. I dunno...I've never worked a cyber-newsdesk before, only the old fashioned newsroom travail. It's obvious from gauging the national news flow that civility everywhere is in short supply these days, all the way down to grass roots and bedrock even.
I only know that I do not under any circumstance want to see Comments go away , whether by design or in the case of the Cody paper, by attrition. It's too important that people have established outlets for opinions in this day and age when so much news cannot be reported at all due to budgetary constraints. We are all citizen journalists now. Somehow, the responsibility that goes with that must be du rigeur.
I especially encourage you and NewWest to hold the beachhead you've waded onto , in this Brave New World of cyber-journalism. Having the gamut of open comments are healthier than not having them at all. Think of it as composting by the heap. From it we can grow good stuff, organically.
The comment pages I like the least are those of the Salt Lake Tribunal. Registered users, that's fine, but still anonymous, but the worst part is how the comments can be rated. Lots of times comments are subsumed or hidden (you can click) which serves to "muzzle dissent."
Then there is how the NYT's moderators "feature" comments. No different from how they put letters on the editorial page, but still manipulative in what is "fit" or "fittest."
As for the Enterprise, I can't stand the gobblygook anti-spam thing, they are hardly legible and I always get it wrong at least once.
Anonymous free speech has a role in a free society, but it is a limited role reserved only for critical, fundamental issues along the lines of prisoners being held for conscience, for the solution of criminal activity -- you know, IMPORTANT things where attaching a name to a statement would result in oppression. The end goal of saying something anonymously is to eventually say it openly -- and if what you are saying is a moral thing, or correct, it should be said.
That's kind of distinct from anonymous slaggery, or good old "hate speech" -- because it is done anonymously, it has intrinsically low value. Never mind that if anyone finds out who cranks out that dreck, there's some kind of heck to pay.
In letters to the editor, people have to sign their names to what ends up on the letters page for everyone to see. I just wish that was true of comment boards as well.
Let's pretend we are debating policy. Would we do it in a dark room where disembodied voices float out of the darkness?
No, we do it in daylight. If someone says something brilliant, or really stupid, we can then ask, "Who are you?"
By the way Jay, turns out the cuts weren't the worst part. I sprained the daylight out of the second joint, too. Be staying away from the magnums for a while.
We don't live in the world as it really is -- we live in the world as we perceive it. The hatred and vitriol I see both in some of the specialty media and in the online blog commentary is changing my perception of the world to one where there seems less hope than ever before that we can have a civil, respectful and reasoned society that makes principled choices. If it's more than just me reacting this way, heaven help us all.
This has to pass, and it can only pass if some kind of social consensus puts an end to the "right" of individuals to fire from cover while hiding behind anonymity. Freedom of speech is a right we grant ourselves collectively, but we need collectively to demand accountability for speech too. Otherwise, we surrender the world to cowards.
I've contributed this anonymously (it's my real first name) but I'll be the first to register if a great site like this one tries another step towards making people take responsibility for what they say in public.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but a certain amount of anonimity seems to be wise on the internet.
ID theft is a threat, but like any threat, it's only as much a threat as you let it be. Don't be posting your SSAN, obviously. It's not that much different from being selectively discreet in "real" life.
Besides, if I did want your SSAN or accounts, where would I look for the biggest payoff? I'd be rooting around in a Wall Street or government server farm, so I could score HUNDREDS of files full of money.
Never mind the fact that if someone did "come find your house" then you have a right to protect your property and yourself.
Jay brings up a point and leaves an opening Guns are a fundamental right, just as is free speech, but there are legitimate uses and illegitimate uses of both. Call me out at high noon and it's righteous, well, sorta. Snipe from the trees, you better not miss, and even if you don't miss, nobody respects you for it unless it's a declared war which is legal murder.
Finally, regarding "civility:" To be frank, after the first cheap shot across the bow, I don't feel much obligation to be civil unless I'm reciprocating it....
Why should I, or anyone, be "civil" when someone attacks gun owners as a class, or brands someone a "rightwingcrazy" or whatever simply because of an inability to construct a response on some kind of merit? Especially when the selfsame party is a troll, just stirring the soup (think another S word) when the grownups are arguing?
The bill of rights, like the Constitution, is a body of law. Start amputating the parts you don't like, and have the other guys amputating the parts THEY don't like, and soon you have, what?
Not much....
or in political terms,
Formerly Great Britain.
None of us live like 1789, and thank God for that. Thank technology, too.
The crafting of the Constitution was probably one of the greatest advances in human liberty ever, one of the most successful social experiments of all time, probably the most sophisticated political document ever written, that pushed the frontiers of human freedom so far ahead of the rest of the world, they've not yet caught up.
And you'd chiz it apart in favor of something more "advanced?"
Like what?
The naivete--the embarrassment--the nihilism--the anachronism--of people publicly packing heat in a nation of more than three hundred million is testament to a need to revisit our political base at a constitutional convention...
People can symbolically burn books.
No need any longer to just not read them--they can obliterate them from their sight forever.
+1 for ignore buttons!!!!!
*eyeroll*
I'm not going to get into gun control here.
However, I simply must ask....you would open the door to a complete restructuring of the U.S. Constitution simply to be able to get at what you call an "anachronism?"
And you actually believe that under current conditions, where trust in the federal gummint is in the toilet for zillions of reasons, it will be possible to write a new constitution?
Given such elegant and well-crafted efforts as, say, the bailout bill or the AGW or health care efforts, I'd really like you to reason this one out for us.
I'm really confused as to why now is a better time for a constitutional convention than anytime in the last 25 years. Maybe Jay can elaborate.
I'll concede perhaps things are less-contentious inasmuch as the Continental Congress regime was a fiasco, but let's understand that "parties" of the right and left as we know them today didn't exist.
Et
cetera
Anyway, I propose:
Jay, since you have given this some forethought, say 25 years or so, how about an Unfiltered or even a Guest (and we''ll all find out who Jay really is, finally) on why you think a constitutional convention is appropriate.