George Gilder, an architect of supply-side economics, is the author of the worldwide bestseller “Wealth and Poverty,” perhaps the definitive moral case for capitalism. Released during the first year of the Reagan administration, the book sold over a million copies. A former speechwriter for George Romney and Richard Nixon, Gilder also wrote books critiquing feminism and the modern welfare state. He writes his own newsletter titled, “The Gilder Technology Report.” His next book, “Knowledge and Power” will be released in June. Gilder spoke at the Federal Income Tax CCA on Tuesday.
What about the supply-side economic message do you find particularly relevant for today?
We’re currently in the midst of a wild demand-side experiment, a maniacal kind of pumping up of demand all around the world, and a complete blind failure to recognize that capital is specific, it’s full of information, it’s interrelated to other capital, it’s cumulative. It just can’t be summoned by mere emission of flows of paper.
Your thesis in your famous book “Wealth and Poverty” is that investors begin with altruism. How does this differ from the Randian school of thought, and what was their reaction to it?
Ayn Rand devoted her last speech to a critique of “Wealth and Poverty.” I liked Ayn Rand, and I thought she was a tremendous figure. Her fiction was wonderful and imaginative. I think her novels show quite a full range of human behavior. She just didn’t understand my point, particularly. Entrepreneurs have to collaborate and respond. They can’t be chiefly concerned with their own narrow interests and succeed as capitalists. They have to have an imaginative response to the needs of others. She was in a battle against Christianity, which she identified with altruism. They were psychological insights, not political or economic. The extreme Randians could not tell the difference between a Ronald Reagan and a Barack Obama, and that is a problem with libertarianism from my point of view.
You also wrote a book called “Men and Marriage,” a critique of the sexual revolution that outraged feminists. Why was their reaction so overwhelming?
It is a religious faith that has given way to some extent to the green worship today. There is a kind of green jihad, and there was a feminist jihad back then. You can’t diverge from their cause. The book, from their view, was blasphemous.
Since you worked for Governor George Romney, what do you consider the main differences between George and his son, Mitt?
I have to say that I wasn’t all that impressed by George, but I really was impressed by Mitt. I think George was a great salesman. Salesman are necessary capitalist figures, and they are smooth and impressive and energetic, and George was all of those things. I think Mitt was smarter and more capable, and if things had turned a little different, he would be president today. It was closer than it looked.
Why do you think he ultimately lost the close race?
I really do think that Gov. Christie and Sandy had something to do with it. I mean this whole focus on Obama on the beach, all the images of him looking presidential. All the pollsters have their own theories, and it’s very hard to differentiate among them, and Gallup thinks there was a six-point turn in the last week and others say there wasn’t, so you can’t really know. But Gallup is an authority on the field, and they think it was Sandy and all the various atmosphere surrounding it.
It was close enough. I think he probably could have done better in the second and third debate. He imagined he had the momentum, and he began to play defense. That almost always is a mistake. I was in the Nixon campaign when he nearly lost to Humphrey. Humphrey was coming up like Gangbusters at the end. It’s generally believed that if the election had been held a week later, Humphrey would have been president. Obama was elected in just the right time. It was a matter of timing and phases, and I think that’s pretty much why he won.
Do conservatives and Republicans need to reevaluate what they believe in to sell it to the American people?
No. I just think that’s always wrong. You have to have a leader, and followers aren’t leaders. People who follow the polls earn the contempt of the public. You have to have content, and there’s no content on a campaign that’s trying to simulate the impressionistic shifts and turns of people’s views and the polls.
Who do you see becoming that leader?
I really do think Rubio is our guy. I really think that in all my time, I’m 73 now, I’ve seen a lot of politicians, and I think Rubio is as good as any of them or better. I actually would say that he’s better than anybody else I’ve seen. Reagan grew on me. I didn’t immediately recognize his appeal, and Reagan had a kind of strategic sense that was incredibly effective in retrospect. Rubio is immediately accessible. I think Ryan is excellent, but I don’t think he is quite as excellent of a politician as Rubio. I think it’s going to be Rubio, and I think he’ll win and be a great president. I think he can turn this country around. He’s a wonder-worker. He has amazing talent.
What would you say to college students searching for a job? What should students who are passionate about these ideas consider or do?
This is may seem a strange recommendation, but my experience is that anybody who wants to succeed in the world of ideas has to understand accounting. If you don’t understand accounting, in every organization you’re in, you will have to petition the person with the money, and they will be able to give you absolutely conclusive reasons why your project can’t go ahead. Unless you can debate on the grounds on mathematical accounting, you’ll lose all of those exchanges. It’s a great mistake that liberal arts people say they can’t learn math. I said it myself, and I learned that was a mistake. In this world, it is so important to learn numbers.
George Bush’s presidency was discredited because Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson could run him over during a financial crisis. Bush didn’t have a clue, and that’s because he never really mastered accounting. He thought Paulson knew something magical, and it isn’t magical, it’s simple. It just takes work.