4 ms·

I'm very familiar with these arguments - I used to make them myself. But I've come to believe that reality is much more complex than the theory, and that that p

I'm very familiar with these arguments - I used to make them myself. But I've come to believe that reality is much more complex than the theory, and that that particular theory is not coincidentally self-serving to the wealthy and powerful. The foundation of Reagan's 'trickle-down economics' in the 1980s, to badly generalize, was to make the rich and powerful richer and more powerful, and then everyone else would benefit - it's probably not a coincidence that REagan's and the Republican's primary supporters were the primary beneficiaries. The result was predictable: The rich got richer. The secondary benefits never occurred; few others have benefited in the last 30 years. I think (and I may be wrong) you are assuming that "captialism" == the rules of the last 30ish years, that they are somehow optimal for productivity, and that therefore any change to them must yield something suboptimal. But they are just some options among very many (including the options before Reagan) and much of the U.S. economy isn't technically 'capitalism' anyway. > We did it by making a pie so big that even if you only have a tiny slice That's not especially accurate; income distribution inequality was much lower for most of U.S. history than it is today. Also, if you look at the actual history, the U.S. was much more highly regulated, had much higher tax rates, and provided more benefits to its citizens (such as better education) during the period of its highest growth, roughly the 50s and 60s. The U.S. constantly expanded services to its citizens throughout the 20th century.

darawk 8y ago
> I think (and I may be wrong) you are assuming that "captialism" == the rules of the last 30ish years, that they are somehow optimal for productivity, and that therefore any change to them must yield something suboptimal. But they are just some options among very many (including the options before Reagan) and much of the U.S. economy isn't technically 'capitalism' anyway. I'm defining capitalism as essentially private property rights + contract enforcement. I'm not a libertarian absolutist, I think there's room for quite a few regulations. But i'm, in general, skeptical of them by default. I think that externality pricing (e.g. if you damage public property such as the environment, you ought to pay at least enough to fix it) is extremely important, and I think that the way 'natural property' (such as land) has been distributed is highly unequitable, and we'd be much better off with a [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) to replace most of the forms of taxation that we have now as a way of at least partially offsetting that inequitability, while maintaining ideal economic efficiency. I'm also a believer in a strong social safety net, but one designed from an economic perspective, to minimize efficiency loss. I'm no expert, but I think it ought to have essentially two components: raise the minimum standard of living (via either a universal basic income, or a government jobs guarantee) and some form of "rare high cost variance smoothing insurance" (mostly thinking of health here, but other things too, potentially). That is, health insurance that pays only for extreme (cost-wise) events. Healthcare is a complicated issue though due to the fact that incentives get weird and misaligned with cost reduction in various places (it may be worthwhile to make checkups free, because it will reduce the probability of say, cancer progressing to a later stage where care will be more expensive, but if people pay for it themselves, they won't go as often, and it'll end up costing society more). So, I accept that there are quite good arguments for fully socialized healthcare, but I think there are also strong arguments on the other side, though they usually aren't very well articulated in the common media. > That's not especially accurate; income distribution inequality was much lower for most of U.S. history than it is today. Also, if you look at the actual history, the U.S. was much more highly regulated, had much higher tax rates, and provided more benefits to its citizens (such as better education) during the period of its highest growth, roughly the 50s and 60s. The U.S. constantly expanded services to its citizens throughout the 20th century. I'm not sure how that conflicts with the statement of mine that you quoted. We absolutely achieved what we have today by growing the economy. You are right that we also provided many social services. And i'm all for that. I'm not really sure why people focus so much on inequality. Inequality can increase simply because the top goes up. Does it make you worse off if someone else is richer? When Jeff Bezos' fortune increases by 10 billion, are you and I poorer? I suppose in some emotional sense, maybe, but that doesn't really seem relevant to policy. I see no problem with inequality, per se. It'd be easy to eliminate inequality: kill the rich and burn their money. But would anyone be better off for it?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? They a track record in very successful economies. I'm not saying I know the proper measures and their effects, but why not consider what has worked better elsewhere? Working people in those countries, if I understand correctly, have better lives - the benefits from these measures may outweigh the lost benefits to them (if any) from reduced national aggregate income (if any). > I think there are also strong arguments on the other side, though they usually aren't very well articulated in the common media. I'm a little surprised to read that! The arguments for the other side are not only well articulated, they have won the day for generations. > I'm not really sure why people focus so much on inequality. Inequality can increase simply because the top goes up. Does it make you worse off if someone else is richer? It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. In the end, the goal is helping individuals, not aggregate money in the economy. The latter tends to help the former, but not without careful policy.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? Ah, yes, you're right. This is the crux of our disagreement. So, I believe in the strong social safety net for two reasons: 1. It is fundamentally ethical to raise the minimum standard of living. 2. It also allows us to remove the pseudo-safety nets from corporate governance. I want to give people a UBI so that they don't have to work, and then eliminate the minimum wage. If Amazon wants to pay people $2/hour to stock shelves and not give them bathroom breaks, that's great. If those people have meaningful options, then they're free to make that choice for themselves, and either nobody will work for them, or if people do, they truly will be ok with that arrangement. I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. The sort of utopian vision that I have is one where everyone receives cash payments such that they can live decently without working, and has some form of variance smoothing for e.g. healthcare, so that they are not tethered to their jobs in any way. Then we'd have a truly competitive market in labor, where companies really compete to keep people, because people have meaningful options. I think that kind of economy would be insanely productive. It'd be easy for someone to quit their job and start their own business, because there'd be very little risk to doing so. There'd be less friction in starting and operating a business, because it'd require less government oversight. > It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. Ya, so I think that gets to it. It's not about inequality of state it's about inequality of growth. I would prefer to let Bezos get rich by whatever extreme form of capitalism he wants, and then tax him to pay for a safety net. In other words: Bezos is really good at making money. So let's let him do it. Giving workers input into that process is just going to make him worse at it. He'll make less money. Let's let him make all the money, and then find a way to share in the profits ex-post.

darawk 8y ago

> I think (and I may be wrong) you are assuming that "captialism" == the rules of the last 30ish years, that they are somehow optimal for productivity, and that therefore any change to them must yield something suboptimal. But they are just some options among very many (including the options before Reagan) and much of the U.S. economy isn't technically 'capitalism' anyway. I'm defining capitalism as essentially private property rights + contract enforcement. I'm not a libertarian absolutist, I think there's room for quite a few regulations. But i'm, in general, skeptical of them by default. I think that externality pricing (e.g. if you damage public property such as the environment, you ought to pay at least enough to fix it) is extremely important, and I think that the way 'natural property' (such as land) has been distributed is highly unequitable, and we'd be much better off with a [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) to replace most of the forms of taxation that we have now as a way of at least partially offsetting that inequitability, while maintaining ideal economic efficiency. I'm also a believer in a strong social safety net, but one designed from an economic perspective, to minimize efficiency loss. I'm no expert, but I think it ought to have essentially two components: raise the minimum standard of living (via either a universal basic income, or a government jobs guarantee) and some form of "rare high cost variance smoothing insurance" (mostly thinking of health here, but other things too, potentially). That is, health insurance that pays only for extreme (cost-wise) events. Healthcare is a complicated issue though due to the fact that incentives get weird and misaligned with cost reduction in various places (it may be worthwhile to make checkups free, because it will reduce the probability of say, cancer progressing to a later stage where care will be more expensive, but if people pay for it themselves, they won't go as often, and it'll end up costing society more). So, I accept that there are quite good arguments for fully socialized healthcare, but I think there are also strong arguments on the other side, though they usually aren't very well articulated in the common media. > That's not especially accurate; income distribution inequality was much lower for most of U.S. history than it is today. Also, if you look at the actual history, the U.S. was much more highly regulated, had much higher tax rates, and provided more benefits to its citizens (such as better education) during the period of its highest growth, roughly the 50s and 60s. The U.S. constantly expanded services to its citizens throughout the 20th century. I'm not sure how that conflicts with the statement of mine that you quoted. We absolutely achieved what we have today by growing the economy. You are right that we also provided many social services. And i'm all for that. I'm not really sure why people focus so much on inequality. Inequality can increase simply because the top goes up. Does it make you worse off if someone else is richer? When Jeff Bezos' fortune increases by 10 billion, are you and I poorer? I suppose in some emotional sense, maybe, but that doesn't really seem relevant to policy. I see no problem with inequality, per se. It'd be easy to eliminate inequality: kill the rich and burn their money. But would anyone be better off for it?

forapurpose 8y ago
I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? They a track record in very successful economies. I'm not saying I know the proper measures and their effects, but why not consider what has worked better elsewhere? Working people in those countries, if I understand correctly, have better lives - the benefits from these measures may outweigh the lost benefits to them (if any) from reduced national aggregate income (if any). > I think there are also strong arguments on the other side, though they usually aren't very well articulated in the common media. I'm a little surprised to read that! The arguments for the other side are not only well articulated, they have won the day for generations. > I'm not really sure why people focus so much on inequality. Inequality can increase simply because the top goes up. Does it make you worse off if someone else is richer? It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. In the end, the goal is helping individuals, not aggregate money in the economy. The latter tends to help the former, but not without careful policy.
- darawk 8y ago
  > I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? Ah, yes, you're right. This is the crux of our disagreement. So, I believe in the strong social safety net for two reasons: 1. It is fundamentally ethical to raise the minimum standard of living. 2. It also allows us to remove the pseudo-safety nets from corporate governance. I want to give people a UBI so that they don't have to work, and then eliminate the minimum wage. If Amazon wants to pay people $2/hour to stock shelves and not give them bathroom breaks, that's great. If those people have meaningful options, then they're free to make that choice for themselves, and either nobody will work for them, or if people do, they truly will be ok with that arrangement. I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. The sort of utopian vision that I have is one where everyone receives cash payments such that they can live decently without working, and has some form of variance smoothing for e.g. healthcare, so that they are not tethered to their jobs in any way. Then we'd have a truly competitive market in labor, where companies really compete to keep people, because people have meaningful options. I think that kind of economy would be insanely productive. It'd be easy for someone to quit their job and start their own business, because there'd be very little risk to doing so. There'd be less friction in starting and operating a business, because it'd require less government oversight. > It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. Ya, so I think that gets to it. It's not about inequality of state it's about inequality of growth. I would prefer to let Bezos get rich by whatever extreme form of capitalism he wants, and then tax him to pay for a safety net. In other words: Bezos is really good at making money. So let's let him do it. Giving workers input into that process is just going to make him worse at it. He'll make less money. Let's let him make all the money, and then find a way to share in the profits ex-post.