Dry: In Defence of Economic Freedom. A barren response from the Institute of Public Affairs
David Revelman
John Hyde's Dry: In Defence of Economic Freedom (published by the Institute of Public Affairs) is a very good example of why vanity publishing enjoys such a poor reputation. In fact, to do this book justice would probably require a public execution.
It is a self-indulgent and plodding work that takes the reader on a joyless stroll through what Mr Hyde evidently believes to be Australia's free market intellectual vanguard, meaning his mates and the Institute of Public Affairs. In doing so he inadvertently revealed how incestuous and decrepit the right has become.
Joe Cambria, who writes for Brookes, observed that after spending 15 years working on Wall Street as a trader he expected on his return to Australia to find significant and improved changes in our so-called free market movement.
As he himself put it: "When I left Australia it was John Hyde. When I came back to Australia it was still John Hyde. It is almost as if I am in a time-warp. This so-called movement, for want of a better name, seems to have transformed itself into an inclusive club in which only those with money or influence of some kind are welcome." And this is from an observer who only returned to the country last year.
(Hyde, along with the Institute of Public Affairs, seems unaware of the fact that the inevitable fate of small incestuous communities is moral and intellectual decay followed by extinction).
Mr Cambria's observation is not, in my opinion, an unbalanced one. Many others have made similar comments to me. Perhaps the case of Mike Nahan will help illustrate Mr Cambria's point. On page 66 of Hyede's brick-like tome we are told how in the 1980s a States' Policy Unit was set up in Western Australia and that Mr Nahan was put in charge. It is now 2003, some 20 years later, and we find that Mr Nahan is now the director of the Institute of Public Affairs of which John Hyde is a director. Perhaps this is what Mr Hyde means by progress.
It appears that while Adelaide is a city of Churches Melbourne is well and truly a city of connections. Hyde may very well take umbrage at this criticism but the fact remains that he and his friends are not known for throwing down the welcome mat. In any case, Hyde would do well to keep his moral horse confined to its stable lest he find himself unseated.
Many of us still recall that when Hugh Morgan, former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, appointed Trish Caswell to the company's external advisory panel Hyde, who sat on the same panel, did not object nor did he resign in protest. An odd position considering that Caswell is an extreme leftwinger who once named Henry Ford as one of the "great villains" of the twentieth century (Rupert Murdoch's Australian 9-10 March 1996) and so bracketed him with Hitler and Stalin.
She also called on Australia to recognise the PLO despite it being a terrorist organisation. It goes without saying the 'independent-minded' Institute of Public Affairs also had nothing to say on the Caswell appointment.
It pains me to say it but no one I know was surprised by Morgan's cynical gesture or Hyde's lack of moral fibre, not to mention the Institute of Public Affairs' uncharacteristic reticence. But then Morgan is known for having been very generous with shareholders' money. (Fortunately, shareholders are now being spared Morgan's munificence to favoured groups). Moreover, I think Hyde's shocking support for Fraser's 1982 retrospective tax legislation is a good measure of Hyde's adherence to principle.
Apart from its tedium, Hyde's book, sad to say, is also petty. Missing from its pages is any reference to Ken Baker, for example. For years Baker had edited the IPA Review, displaying a degree of intelligence and hard work, for little return, that any other organisation would not have hesitated to publicly recognise. Alas, even the slightest recognition of Mr Baker's efforts was beyond Mr Hyde or even the Institute of Public Affairs itself.
Writing in News Weekly John Stove made the same observation (For "Dry", read arid and barren, 14 December 2002), mentioning several others as well as Baker. Obviously stung by Stove's criticism, Hyde responded with a letter in which he said: "The book omits to mention many very worthy people besides Ken Baker, whom I hope is well aware of my high regard for him…"
This is so weak that it would have been better if he had not penned it. His pal Greg Lindsay not only gets mentioned on pages 59, 60, 70, 108 and 177 he also gets pages 66-68. I do not object to Lindsay getting this attention. What I do find offensive is Hyde's pretence that he could not find sufficient room to give Baker, Rutherford, Abrahami, Mike Warby and several others their due.
To put it bluntly, Hyde's defence of free market economics is lousy. He is completely trapped within the neo-classical framework of which he has only the dimmest understanding. His comment on laissez faire makes it clear that he has no notion of the origins of the phrase. (In this regard, however, he is not alone, especially at the Institute of Public Affairs).
Further remarks on markets reveal a slippery grasp of the concept of the market as a process. This is all the more damning considering his references to von Mises and Hayek.
His discussion of recessions and the Kondratieff cycle should finally put to rest any idea that Hyde is qualified to defend market economics. One can only wonder at those who advised him on these matters. It certainly reflects badly on the Institute of Public Affairs that it saw fit to publish these fallacies.
That the free market needs to be defended is indisputable. It is now, I believe, equally indisputable that Mr Hyde and his Institute of Public Affairs' mates are not the ones to do it.
BrookesNews.Com
Melbourne: Australia
Sunday 2 Feb. 2003