Nonfiction

The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market

The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market

  • Downloads：9561
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2023-02-26 17:22:03
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Naomi Oreskes
  • ISBN：B0B55F4XBY
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

The bestselling authors of Merchants of Doubt offer a profound， startling history of one of America's most tenacious-and destructive-false ideas: the myth of the "free market。"

Merchants of Doubt exposed the origins of climate change denial。 Now， its authors unfold the truth about another disastrous dogma。 Why do Americans believe in the “magic of the marketplace”？

The answer， as The Big Myth reveals: a propaganda blitz。 Until the early 1900s， the U。S。 government's guiding role in economic life was largely accepted。 But then business elites， trade associations， wealthy powerbrokers， and media allies combatted regulation by building a new orthodoxy: down with “big government，” up with unfettered markets。 Unearthing eye-opening archival evidence， Oreskes and Conway document campaigns to rewrite textbooks， combat unions， and defend child labor。 They detail the ploys that turned hardline economists Hayek and Friedman into household names， recount the libertarian roots of the Little House on the Prairie books， and tune into the General Electric-sponsored TV show that beamed free-market doctrine （and the young Ronald Reagan） to millions。

By the 1970s， this crusade had succeeded。 Its ideology would define the next half-century across Republican and Democratic administrations， giving us the opioid scourge， climate destruction， giant tech monopolies， and a baleful response to the Covid-19 pandemic。 Only by understanding this history can we imagine a future where markets will serve， not stifle， democracy。

Download

Reviews

Rusty Shackleford ，

Historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote that "the paranoid is a double sufferer， since he is afflicted not only by the real world， with the rest of us， but by his fantasies as well。" A compelling case could be made that this affliction has taken hold among the highest ranks of Hofstadter's own profession。 New academic "histories" now appear on a near-monthly basis， each blaming a variety of social ills on the conspiratorial machinations around a single idea: the free market。Almost everything in Historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote that "the paranoid is a double sufferer， since he is afflicted not only by the real world， with the rest of us， but by his fantasies as well。" A compelling case could be made that this affliction has taken hold among the highest ranks of Hofstadter's own profession。 New academic "histories" now appear on a near-monthly basis， each blaming a variety of social ills on the conspiratorial machinations around a single idea: the free market。Almost everything in this genre follows the same formula。 When the American electorate fails to embrace the political priorities of an Ivy League humanities department， these disheartened authors cast about for a blameworthy culprit。 They settle on "market fundamentalism" or "neoliberalism。" The explanation then takes a paranoid turn， declaring the targeted theories a "manufactured myth" arising from the "inventions" of 20th century business interests， which allegedly hoodwinked voters into accepting the "magic" of the free market as a matter of received wisdom。 Certain that they have found the source of their political obstacles， these historians then claim to uncover a "secret" history that has been hiding in plain sight。 All eventually settle on a mundane conspiracy of business interests and libertarian economists， who allegedly derailed America from its progressive path by convincing people that markets work better than government at solving problems。At some 550 pages， The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us To Loathe Government and Love the Free Market is among the most loquacious entrants into this crowded literature。 Harvard University's Naomi Oreskes and California Institute of Technology historian Erik Conway lay out their conspiracy theory with formulaic precision， but their book is atypical in one significant way。 While most of the other works in the anti-neoliberalism genre manage at least to excavate some interesting archival findings about libertarian economists （before badly misinterpreting them）， this book is remarkably light on original content。The Big Myth's argument most closely resembles that of Cornell University historian Lawrence Glickman's 2019 book Free Enterprise: An American History， which advanced a nearly identical thesis wherein the concept of "free enterprise" allegedly arose as a myth in the service of anti–New Deal business interests。 But The Big Myth also weaves in recent tracts by Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe， Kim Phillips-Fein， Kevin Kruse， Quinn Slobodian， and Jane Mayer。 Oreskes and Conway round out their spartan use of economic sources （their recounting of "market failure" theory makes heavier use of Pope Francis' encyclicals than any actual economics texts） with a dash of Thomas Piketty's dubious inequality empirics and a touch of Ha-Joon Chang's attempts to resurrect trade protectionism。A reader with even casual awareness of these other authors will be left wondering why this same story needed yet another repackaged recitation。 The result is a meandering journey through secondary sources and Wikipedia entries， presented as if they were tacked to a basement wall amid a disorderly web of yarn and dental floss in a progression that only its authors truly comprehend。The Big Myth is structured in sequential vignettes about various themes and figures such as Ludwig von Mises， Leonard Read， Friedrich Hayek， Rose Wilder Lane， and Milton Friedman， all of whom are portrayed as either willing propagandists for big business or hapless dupes of the same。 The authors expend almost no effort on understanding the arguments of the thinkers they set out to debunk。A revealing example appears in the book's treatment of Leonard Read's 1958 essay "I， Pencil。" Read's story is a fairly straightforward allegory for Adam Smith's famous concept of the "invisible hand，" showing how complex social coordination arises from routine economic exchanges and signals in the absence of a centralized design。 To Oreskes and Conway， however， the metaphor is literally the hand of God working from above to ensure the market system provides。 As they put it， "God made the marketplace and the marketplace made the pencil; ergo God made the pencil。"This peculiar reading originates in a remark by Read's titular pencil: "Since only God can make a tree， I insist that only God could make me。" While Read was a practicing Christian who used religious imagery in his writing， this quip was not an invocation of divine intervention to account for the assembly of pencils。 It is an allusion to a famous line from Joyce Kilmer's poem "Trees，" a point that Read made obvious in a later printing that credited the saying to "a poet。" Oreskes and Conway nonetheless carry their mistake to absurd lengths， sneering all the while that deviation from the progressive economic planner's impulse is a sign of superstitious philosophical Occasionalism about markets。Interpretive peculiarities continue in their treatment of Ludwig von Mises' Socialism。 After initially acknowledging that the book was written in German in 1922， Oreskes and Conway soon drift into anachronism by insinuating that it was intended as a critique of President Franklin Roosevelt。 （"Mises's use of the term socialism was misleading，" they contend， "because no credible American political leader in 1944 was advocating central planning。"） They augment this ascription of prophecy with a sleight of hand， replacing the revolutionary Marxists of Mises' original commentaries with the comparatively benign Norman Thomas as their own preferred avatar of socialism。 Like other texts in the anti-neoliberalism genre， The Big Myth removes 20th century free market authors from their historical context by hand-waving the Soviet Union out of existence and proceeding as if socialism means nothing more than a narrow swath of modern Scandinavian social democracies。Such errors are frequently paired with another recurring theme: the authors' fundamental inability to approach their opponents with anything remotely resembling intellectual charity。 The book is filled with gratuitous swipes， many of them comically ahistorical。This usually means either a false accusation of racism or a disparaging attack on a target's qualifications。 Mises receives both types of abuse。 After dubbing him an "absolutist who sympathized with fascism，" Oreskes and Conway launch into an extended attack on the Austrian economist's migration to the United States in 1940。 In their telling， Mises was a relic of a bygone laissez faire ideology who struggled to find a respectable academic job until "dark money" funders created a succession of positions for him at New York University。 It is doubtful they would pass similar judgment on the many academic refugees from Nazi Germany who hailed from the political left。 Meanwhile， Mises' academic work in the United States gained higher honors than either Oreskes or Conway has ever achieved。 By the decade's end， he had published three monographs with Yale University Press， including the decidedly anti-fascist book Omnipotent Government。 Upon his retirement from teaching at age 88， Mises was named a distinguished fellow of the American Economic Association。Only a paragraph after branding Mises a fascist sympathizer， Oreskes and Conway shift into gushing praise for John Maynard Keynes' "The End of Laissez Faire。" Keynes' lifelong support for eugenics extended to this famous essay， which called on governments to "pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers" of their citizenry。 Interestingly， Keynes first delivered this message as a 1926 lecture at the University of Berlin。 Mises， who attended as an academic observer， lambasted Keynes' irresponsible remarks out of concern that they could be interpreted as support for Nazi race theory。 Keynes continued to flirt with fascist elements through at least 1936， when he penned a notoriously tone-deaf preface to the German edition of his book General Theory， announcing that he "expect[ed] less resistance from German， than from English， readers。"Oreskes and Conway's penchant for disparagement apparently extends only in the free market direction。 They casually brand Milton Friedman a "racist extremist" and defender of segregation， but not for any actual defense of segregation。 The authors simply disagree with his argument that markets were more effective tools for bringing about integration than government edicts。Hofstadter wrote that the paranoic's accounts of his enemies "are on many counts the projection of the self。" It is hard to resist a similar conclusion here。 Oreskes and Conway label their opponents racists and eugenicists while lionizing progressive racists and eugenicists。 They accuse Friedrich Hayek of eschewing "the essence of scholarship，" which "is to look past the immediacies of time and place，" while themselves constantly processing history through their modern partisan commitments。 They accuse free market economists of venturing outside their scientific expertise while offering their own decidedly nonexpert opinions on everything from economic inequality to COVID-19。The authors' discussion of the latter subject， which closes the book， is unintentionally comedic。 Oreskes and Conway use the pandemic to contrast U。S。 "market failure" with the alleged success of "countries that mounted a strong， coordinated response，" China foremost among them。 As their book went to press， China's centralized "zero-COVID" regime was collapsing into the same unfettered disease spread that Oreskes and Conway ascribe to free markets。 But readers should not expect any self-interrogation from this pair。 。。。more

Gastao Taveira ，

I listened to Naomi Oresks on the book in the Michael Shermer Show podcast。 It is perplexing。Oreskes cherry picks on Adam Smith， misrepresents Milton Friedman， Hayek， Ronald Reagan and libertarians。She uses the strawman falacy against freemarket proponents depicting them as "market fundamentalists"。She misrerepresents free markets using crony capitalism examples as if they were not on opposite sides of free competition。 Actually most modern crony capitalism results from government inyervention w I listened to Naomi Oresks on the book in the Michael Shermer Show podcast。 It is perplexing。Oreskes cherry picks on Adam Smith， misrepresents Milton Friedman， Hayek， Ronald Reagan and libertarians。She uses the strawman falacy against freemarket proponents depicting them as "market fundamentalists"。She misrerepresents free markets using crony capitalism examples as if they were not on opposite sides of free competition。 Actually most modern crony capitalism results from government inyervention when bureaucrats are captured by businesses to prevent competition， newcomers - and Shumpeters "creative destruction"。 She talks about the problems of banks and the finacial crisis， ignoring the role of central banks and public policies - including government deficits and debt。 As if the libertarians and other free market proponentswhere not the main critics of the banking system。 。。。more

Mr Brian ，

What are your views of ‘Government’ and where do these come from？How much should any government regulate industry， if at all？ With the fossil fuel giant Shell reporting their highest profits in 115 years of almost $40 billion this year， calls have intensified in the UK at least， for a bigger windfall tax on energy companies from the government。When we observe how big businesses， and individual business owners behave today， wielding their power autocratically- surely it’s time to ask if this is r What are your views of ‘Government’ and where do these come from？How much should any government regulate industry， if at all？ With the fossil fuel giant Shell reporting their highest profits in 115 years of almost $40 billion this year， calls have intensified in the UK at least， for a bigger windfall tax on energy companies from the government。When we observe how big businesses， and individual business owners behave today， wielding their power autocratically- surely it’s time to ask if this is really how we want business to behave。 How can we hold them to account as they create mega-media conglomerates and monopolies？Oreskes and Conway return in ‘The Big Myth- How American Business Taught Us To Loathe Government And Love The Free Market’ to reveal how the narrative and belief system of a ‘free market’ has dominated the American ideology- oftentimes in the face of evidence that leads to the opposition view。 The meticulous， detailed， patient and thorough research that was the hallmark of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ is once again on display， as the authors evaluate ‘the history of a construction of a myth。’ The forensic unravelling of the dominant pro-business ideology is potentially more aimed at an American audience， with cultural and historical references throughout。 The underlying moral however， has lessons for all countries， as the 21st century faces multiplying threats and the narrative continues as to where the solutions will come from。 ‘Many people think climate change will be best addressed by technological innovation in the marketplace’ This book therefore， is not one which simply looks back to how a myth was constructed in one country throughout the 20th century， but rather a studious deconstruction of why we have thought of ‘government’ and ‘business’ in particular ways and who has benefitted from this conditioning。The authors are keen to highlight that the presented false dichotomies of ‘Big Business’ or ‘Big Government’ are not the absolute choices that they appear to be。 ‘Our choices are not confined to oppressive communism or heartless capitalism。 To suggest that they are is a dangerous failure of vision。’Understanding the insidious messaging and omnipresent integration propaganda that has existed， whether for the tobacco industry， the fossil fuel industry， or business interests can help with ‘pre-bunking’ the ‘The Big Myth’ that only one viewpoint can hold sway。As Oreskes and Conway conclude， ‘The big myth’s expiration date is long past due。 Our futures depend on rejecting it。’How did so many Americans come to have so much faith in markets and so little faith in government？Oreskes and Conway open the book by identifying the starting place for ‘market fundamentalism’ in the late 19th century， as a burgeoning USA was beginning to assert its identity。 ‘Market fundamentalism is a quasi-religious belief that the best way to address our needs- whether economic or otherwise- is to let markets do their thing， and not rely on government。’‘The market’ became this entity， almost in its own right， that existed nebulously outside of regulation， where ‘economic freedom’ could rule and any regulation of the marketplace ‘would be the first step on a slippery slope to socialism， communism or worse。’ However， the authors suggest that， ‘”The Market” doesn’t exist outside of society， but is part of society and like society’s other parts， must be subject to law and regulation。’In Chapter 1 then， the authors explore that expressing any type of freedom is always a balance of competing rights。 They scrutinise the impact of Amendments to the Constitution and how this balance of protection of citizens could be balanced with capitalist growth。 They are also at pains to emphasise the importance of the opening of the Constitution， ‘We the People of the United States’， to highlight the omission of the capitalist focus， therefore opening the question to， where， when and why， did this narrative take hold。As Oreskes and Conway find， ‘Americans in the early twentieth century were largely suspicious of “Big Business” and saw the government as their ally。 By the later decades of the century， this had flipped。’ It is true to note as well that Governments tend not to spend their financial budgets on advertising and promoting their own narratives and ideology， whereas companies and businesses ringfence large amounts of their budgets for the promotion of a free market economy。 It is also true to stress the importance of the ‘Tripod of Freedom’， which emerged as a claim that free enterprise was an inseparable part of American identity。 ‘The myth of the Tripod of Freedom， the claim that America was founded on three basic， interdependent principles: representative democracy， political freedom and free enterprise。 Free enterprise appears in neither the Declaration of Independence nor the constitution。’Experts for hireOreskes and Conway begin by exploring how this narrative started to change in the opening decades of the 20th century and how the electrical industry， and more particularly the National Association of Manufacturers （NAM）， which ‘insisted that the federal government should stay out of its way and not regulate the workplace。’ The power of industry and financial backing of industry for advertising campaigns and favourable editorials alongside industry backed ‘studies’ that demonstrated whatever the industry wanted them to demonstrate began to reach hundreds of thousands of consumers。 Almost 100 years on， we can see the same playbook being used by fossil fuel companies and advocates to delay the full emergence of the renewable energy industry。 Language began to be artfully used to create opposites。 That ‘liberal’ now meant ‘anti-American’， or ‘anti-whatever convenient label’ that could be used， including the dreaded label of being a ‘socialist’， forgetting perhaps the Constitution words， ‘to promote the general welfare。’。 These campaigns from the National Electric Light Association as well， ‘foreshadowed later efforts by the tobacco industry to fight the facts about their products and influence scientific researchers and educators to promote their point of view。’ And ‘helped to construct a key plank in the platform of American market fundamentalism and a key factor in the big myth of the Free Market。This messaging came to a crashing halt on October 29， 1929， when the New York Stock Exchange collapsed and the scale of market failure could be clearly evidenced。Business regroupsDespite the New Deal offering security， business interests regrouped and spent the decade following creating ‘the proposition that any compromise to economic freedom would inevitably lead to despotism- and that political and economic freedom were therefore inseparable- would become one of the fundamental tenets of market fundamentalism’s big myths… Freedom would be defined above all as economic freedom。This created the necessary cultural semantic echo between ‘inseparable’ and ‘indivisible’- which， in turn， meant that business could now attack any government activity into the marketplace as a ‘threat to freedom， a threat to the American way of life。’ With radio being hugely important as a means of communication and reaching over 80% of American families by the end of the 1930s， a new platform for propaganda could be used continuously and invisibly。 ‘Capitalism was about freedom， NAM would insist， and the survival of American democracy was at stake。’Modes of communicationOreskes and Conway analyse in depth popular media of the following decades- evaluating the impact the binary rhetoric that was promoted by religious Christian Libertarians of Government or God- or ‘You are either with us， or against us，’ had in promoting absolutes。 Absolutes which led to the American people finding it difficult to have constructive conversations about identity， or how they had been led astray。Influential film directors and writers， from Frank Capra’s ‘It’s a Wonderful Life， to Wilder’s ‘Little House’ books began to counter and promote the interests of business respectively。 ‘During the 1940s and ‘50s， libertarian moviemakers and their allies in business deployed censorship， intimidation， and overt propaganda to change the tone of America’s screens and disseminate the myth of the free market。’‘The era of Big government is over。’As the final decades of the 20th century arrived， the messaging of the Big Myth of the ‘magic of the marketplace’ was completed by Ronald Reagan。 ‘In the 1920s， Americans had hated “Big Business”; Reagan would persuade us to hate “Big Government。” Reagan’s repeated insistence of ‘the magic of the marketplace’- in reality， an empty clichéd phrase- became his catch phrase。 A repeated message repeated daily and with the backing of industry can prove very effective at convincing people not to look beyond the words and look for the evidence instead- even when the public are being negatively impacted directly。 This was a strategy that Donald Trump would later employ with deadly consequences during both his presidential campaign and during the Covid pandemic。“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem。”- Ronald Reagan。In 1996， when Bill Clinton declared “the era of Big Government is over”， business must have rejoiced。 What is often forgotten though is that ‘Clinton governed from the center-left， defending Social Security and Medicare。’Oreskes and Conway begin to conclude ‘The Big Myth’ by drawing attention to the continued market failures to regulate itself， by highlighting the Enron implosion and by exploring the lack of business support for climate action， which hinders business progress。‘The fossil fuel industry’s economic interests in preventing climate action have always been obvious; less understood is how it camouflaged those interests。 No one ever said “I am denying climate change to protect corporate profits。” They said that they were protecting jobs， protecting the economy， and protecting free markets from government “encroachment”。 They said they were fighting for capitalism and freedom。’The response to the Covid pandemic is also highlighted as a market failure， as the authors comment that， ‘The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us how expensive overreliance on the “free” market can be。’ They also conclude that ‘the Covid-19 crisis has made crystal clear why some problems demand substantive governmental solutions， and why many of them can’t just be temporary。’The era of ‘Big Business’ is over？The authors caution that a century of programming and conditioning that loving the free market and loathing of Government ‘is not easily undone。’ They warn that ‘The Big Myth has a tenacious hold。 Polls show that in many domains。 Americans trust the private sector more that they trust “The Government。” This continued hostility and lack of trust allows for the rhetoric that any Government can’t be trusted， even in the face of existential threats like climate change。 The true costs of the ‘free’ market may be becoming more visible， despite business interests to the contrary。‘Five hundred thousand dead from opioids， over a million dead from Covid-19， massive inequality， rampant anxiety and unhappiness， and the well-being of us all threatened by climate change: these are the true costs of the “free” market。’As Oreskes and Conway conclude，‘Government is not the solution to all our problems， but it is the solution to many of our biggest ones。’ 。。。more

Morgan ，

The Big Myth dives into the history of how businesses and think tanks pushed their libertarian view of markets/government mainstream。 While the book was a bit of a necessary slow build， I really enjoyed the section about Rose Wilder Lane and how her views influenced the Little House on the Prairie books。 I’d highly recommend this for anyone into history as well as politics。

Rick Burcik ，

These two authors are both historians of science， and I didn't find their new book very satisfying。 It， for my taste， contained too many descriptors that always pointed to the left of the political spectrum。 I would have enjoyed it more if it had contained a much more balanced tone。 I believe this is the second book they have co-authored， and my memory tells me that their first effort suffered from the same unnecessary slanting in their verbiage。 These two authors are both historians of science， and I didn't find their new book very satisfying。 It， for my taste， contained too many descriptors that always pointed to the left of the political spectrum。 I would have enjoyed it more if it had contained a much more balanced tone。 I believe this is the second book they have co-authored， and my memory tells me that their first effort suffered from the same unnecessary slanting in their verbiage。 。。。more

Steve ，

Overall I enjoyed this book （even the acknowledgments）。 The authors give a careful background to set the stage for what is to come。 After the book goes through the background， which is essential to the story） the book takes off like a rocket。 I really couldn’t put the book down。 I felt that all of the authors’ points are well referenced and supported。 The discussion of how we got here is second to none。 To me， the book had only one real weakness， and that was that it got off to a slow start with Overall I enjoyed this book （even the acknowledgments）。 The authors give a careful background to set the stage for what is to come。 After the book goes through the background， which is essential to the story） the book takes off like a rocket。 I really couldn’t put the book down。 I felt that all of the authors’ points are well referenced and supported。 The discussion of how we got here is second to none。 To me， the book had only one real weakness， and that was that it got off to a slow start with a detailed discussion and too many examples。 It was fascinating but information-dense。 But once the groundwork was laid， this was the best discussion of this type of material that I’ve read。 Not only do I feel that this book is worth reading， I consider it a must-read。 Thank you to Netgalley and Bloomsbury Publishing for the advance reader copy。 。。。more

Alexis ，

I could write forever about how interesting and informative this book was！ The depth of research， and the writing skills of the authors shines， on every page。 A deep dive on this topic could have proven to be tedious， but Oreskes and Conway make the material as engaging as it is educational。 The pathway charted through history through the looking glass of “the market” was enlightening on many levels。 The narrative starts with child labor laws （the arguments supporting child labor mirror far too I could write forever about how interesting and informative this book was！ The depth of research， and the writing skills of the authors shines， on every page。 A deep dive on this topic could have proven to be tedious， but Oreskes and Conway make the material as engaging as it is educational。 The pathway charted through history through the looking glass of “the market” was enlightening on many levels。 The narrative starts with child labor laws （the arguments supporting child labor mirror far too closely the arguments supporting today’s topics of homo/transphobia）， moves through the ways that Christianity had to evolve out of socialism （how can we scare people into believing in our doctrine if security comes from somewhere else？） and wraps up with how Reagan really got the ball rolling on modern capitalism’s ethos of only helping the five guys at the top。 The number of times I would read a line and exclaim “that actually explains so much！” cannot be overstated。 The historical， economic and political knowledge gained by reading this book is vital to understanding the current political rifts over business vs。 actual people。 I am absolutely adding these author’s other books to my “Pre-2024 Election Reading List。” 。。。more

Tag

    the big myth how american business taught us to loathe government and love the free market

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0