As promised, I’m moving on to the other amendments today. I’m not equating “rights” with “things listed in the constitution,” it just provides a handy framework.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that social conservatives are more likely to have an expansive view of the 2nd amendment. Social conservatives are more likely to perceive there to be a right to gun ownership, and in some cases a right to use those guns to resist the actions of a tyrannical government, than are progressives. Progressives, especially in crime-ridden inner cities, are likely to see guns as a blight that kills people.
I have some issues with the socially conservative stance, which is this; that I think the possession of a gun by my neighbor is inherently coercive. When push comes to shove, if government is otherwise leaving us alone, the guy with the gun has the power to take away any rights I might have. This is why I don’t think gun ownership is really a libertarian position; rather, gun ownership establishes a series of small groups with the power to govern those around them. The ownership of a hunting rifle or a pistol does little to actually enable people to resist government tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles, etc. Essentially, it only protects people from government when government isn’t very serious about being oppressive. Perhaps that should be a whole blog entry, sometime. In any case, social conservatives at least have an argument that they are more in favor of individual rights here.
The third amendment, which has to do with government quartering the military in peoples houses, isn’t really an issue in modern politics, so I’ll skip it.
The fourth amendment is search and seizure. I think the social conservative record on this is truly abysmal. J. Edgar Hoover, despite his personal quirks, was a social conservative. George W. Bush is a social conservative. The guy who stood up at a town meeting in Norfolk and said he had nothing to hide and that government was welcome to search his underwear if that would help them stop the next 9/11, was a social conservatives. Progressives have things to hide – we’re up to all sorts of edgy and kinky things. We think that telecom companies should be prosecuted for helping the government spy on people, we think that the Patriot act should be repealed, and we think domestic spying should require a warrant – hey, just like the fourth amendment says. Big win for the Progressives.
The fifth throught seventh amendments have been squished on by GWB, too, in failing to provide trials, but I don’t think this can be laid at the door of social conservatives, per se. It’s really kind of a unique aberration to GWB, not seen since Abraham Lincoln – who was a progressive. On the other hand, it’s worth noting here that conservative judges are far less likely to grant appeals by criminals, including those on death row, and for less likely to overturn sentences. To that degree, social conservatives are less likely to uphold the rights of the accused. Having said that, there’s a way one can take this too far – when “reasonable doubt” becomes sufficiently broadly defined, convictions become virtually impossible, and we become less free because we are not protected from individual takings of our freedom (robberies, murders, etc.) I don’t really think we’re close to that point, however, so that’s a theoretical argument. A less socially conservative judiciary would almost certainly improve the preservation of the rights enumerated in the fifth amendment.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who cares most about your freedom?
I had a conversation recently with a conservative who claimed that social conservatives were better at protecting individual liberties than their progressive counterparts. Some good points were made, and I thought I’d examine this by going through the bill of rights in a semi-methodical way. It looks like this may be a series, as I only made it part way into the first amendment today.
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press. I’m rolling these into one because I think in modern times this has pretty much been considered one right. Rather than two separate rights, one to speak in the public square, the other to print things on paper products, we now see a “freedom of expression” that covers television, the internet, displays of sculpture, etc. I would say that interpretation has been a boon to freedom, and that it’s a primarily liberal achievement, one of interpreting the “spirit of a living document” as opposed to strict constructionism. This isn’t really about the past, however, it’s about the present.
Progressive are far more in favor of hate crime legislation, and bans on hate speech. There’s some reasons for this that are to progressives credit, but the net effect is chilling to speech, and has government deciding what sorts of expressions are acceptable. Score one for conservatives.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are far more likely to decide it’s important to regulate erotic speech. There’s a portion of the liberal movement (Cynthia MacKinnon) et al, that sees pornography as an attempt by men to subjugate women, and uses that as a way to push for speech limits, but I think they’ve lost traction, on the whole. Conservatives are more likely to try to punish “indecency” ala Janet Jackson, and so forth, by levying fines, I think, which has the intent of chilling speech. Liberals are more comfortable with George Carlin’s 7 words. I think, though, as a governing matter, progressives tend to let conservatives get their way here, because they perceive that it gives the least offence, so the actual value to liberty of having progressives in charge is fairly small, except at the judicial level.
Social conservatives are for filtering in libraries, and in general are in favor of library censorship to a far greater degree than are progressives. They go for the listener, essentially, instead of after the speaker.
On the whole, I’m absolutely convinced that progressives believe in these freedoms more than conservatives do, but sadly, I think as a matter of government it’s about a wash.
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, and freedom from government establishment thereof.
By and large, we are indeed free to choose the religion of our choice in this country, and neither social conservatives nor liberals are inclined to change that much. The notable exception is the military, which chooses to recognize or not recognize certain religions as being legitimate, and decides which religious symbols are acceptable to display on the gravestones of veterans. Here, at least, progressives are clearly on the greater freedom side of the issue. We’ll find this a repeating theme, actually; progressives almost always favor greater freedom for people in the military.
Social conservatives are far more likely to advocate that time be set aside in public events for prayer; they are far more likely to assert that Christian and/or Jewish displays are normative and that Buddhist/Wiccan/etc. displays are not, on public property. Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Social Conservatives are responsible for the state establishment of religion in the “Under God” clause of the pledge of allegiance.
Social Conservatives are more likely to think it’s appropriate to “profile” Muslims as potential terrorists, and to do so in a way that inhibits their freedoms and essentially punishes them for their religion.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press. I’m rolling these into one because I think in modern times this has pretty much been considered one right. Rather than two separate rights, one to speak in the public square, the other to print things on paper products, we now see a “freedom of expression” that covers television, the internet, displays of sculpture, etc. I would say that interpretation has been a boon to freedom, and that it’s a primarily liberal achievement, one of interpreting the “spirit of a living document” as opposed to strict constructionism. This isn’t really about the past, however, it’s about the present.
Progressive are far more in favor of hate crime legislation, and bans on hate speech. There’s some reasons for this that are to progressives credit, but the net effect is chilling to speech, and has government deciding what sorts of expressions are acceptable. Score one for conservatives.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are far more likely to decide it’s important to regulate erotic speech. There’s a portion of the liberal movement (Cynthia MacKinnon) et al, that sees pornography as an attempt by men to subjugate women, and uses that as a way to push for speech limits, but I think they’ve lost traction, on the whole. Conservatives are more likely to try to punish “indecency” ala Janet Jackson, and so forth, by levying fines, I think, which has the intent of chilling speech. Liberals are more comfortable with George Carlin’s 7 words. I think, though, as a governing matter, progressives tend to let conservatives get their way here, because they perceive that it gives the least offence, so the actual value to liberty of having progressives in charge is fairly small, except at the judicial level.
Social conservatives are for filtering in libraries, and in general are in favor of library censorship to a far greater degree than are progressives. They go for the listener, essentially, instead of after the speaker.
On the whole, I’m absolutely convinced that progressives believe in these freedoms more than conservatives do, but sadly, I think as a matter of government it’s about a wash.
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, and freedom from government establishment thereof.
By and large, we are indeed free to choose the religion of our choice in this country, and neither social conservatives nor liberals are inclined to change that much. The notable exception is the military, which chooses to recognize or not recognize certain religions as being legitimate, and decides which religious symbols are acceptable to display on the gravestones of veterans. Here, at least, progressives are clearly on the greater freedom side of the issue. We’ll find this a repeating theme, actually; progressives almost always favor greater freedom for people in the military.
Social conservatives are far more likely to advocate that time be set aside in public events for prayer; they are far more likely to assert that Christian and/or Jewish displays are normative and that Buddhist/Wiccan/etc. displays are not, on public property. Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Social Conservatives are responsible for the state establishment of religion in the “Under God” clause of the pledge of allegiance.
Social Conservatives are more likely to think it’s appropriate to “profile” Muslims as potential terrorists, and to do so in a way that inhibits their freedoms and essentially punishes them for their religion.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The GM Bailout
The auto industry is on Capitol Hill today, asking for money. The argument goes that if General Motors goes into bankruptcy, the job loss and the resultant tax revenue loss will push our economy from recession to depression. But the question is not only whether we should bail them out – it’s how we should do it.
There are several different models to follow. The first, used to revive Chrysler 29 years ago, is a loan guarantee. In this model, the federal government put up no money directly at all, but simply guaranteed a loan that Chrysler got from a private source, making taxpayers liable for the bill if Chrysler ultimately defaulted. Other than the taxes Chrysler would ultimately pay if it survived, there wasn’t a lot for the Federal government to gain in this scenario, but those tax revenues were significant. The bailout also came with an attached string: Chrysler could only get the money if it found a way to save a large amount in the way it did business. Essentially, the bailout gave Chrysler leverage with the union. There’s some wisdom there, I think, in that it’s in large part the higher wages that the big three pay their union employees that make them unprofitable vis-à-vis BMW, Toyota, and other manufacturers that make products in the United States.
The average auto worker for the big three makes over 75 dollars an hour; for the others, over 45, so this isn’t a living wage issue.
The second model, used with the big banks, is to loan the money to the recipients directly. In this model, the government hopes to get interest on its money. The way the government chose to loan money to the banks was by taking preferred stock. If the company in question goes under, preferred stock gets paid only after every other debt the company has, which in the case of the banks would mean not at all. Preferred stock differs from common stock primarily in that it has no voting rights. In short, it provides the government with almost no safety, and virtually no leverage.
The third model, used with AIG, is to buy a real stake in the company. The company issues enough common stock to justify the payment from the government, diluting the value of its existing common stock. GM, for instance, is worth about 2 billion dollars on the market, and wants to get 25 billion dollars. After it got the 25 billion dollars, it would be worth 27 billion, so the value of 25 billion dollars of shares is 25/27th of the company, or around 93%. In short, as with AIG, the government would end up a controlling interest in General Motors, and could, theoretically, start slashing executive pay and possibly union worker pay. It could use its position to pursue goals other than profit, too, such as investing in more fuel efficient vehicles than the market really would indicate.
The reason, ultimately, that the second model carried the day with the big banks is that they didn’t want or need a bailout (at least not yet); the reason for getting them cash was to encourage them to make loans so that the rest of the economy would work better. It’s no model for the auto industry, which has come begging; if we give them that kind of deal, there’s going to be an endless line for handouts. The nation has to extract significant concessions in return for supplying money.
Part of the problem with any bailout is that it gives the bailed out company an advantage relative to it’s already solvent, not-bailed-out competitors. In short, it rewards incompetence over competence, and thereby turns the free-market system on its head.
At this point, with energy policy so important to our country, I’d rather have the country buy control of General Motors and run it in the country’s interest for a while. The country’s interest isn’t completely different than the course needed to make the company solvent, and yet it should be striking enough (no SUV production, for instance) that there are plenty of places for GM’s competitors to make money.
There are several different models to follow. The first, used to revive Chrysler 29 years ago, is a loan guarantee. In this model, the federal government put up no money directly at all, but simply guaranteed a loan that Chrysler got from a private source, making taxpayers liable for the bill if Chrysler ultimately defaulted. Other than the taxes Chrysler would ultimately pay if it survived, there wasn’t a lot for the Federal government to gain in this scenario, but those tax revenues were significant. The bailout also came with an attached string: Chrysler could only get the money if it found a way to save a large amount in the way it did business. Essentially, the bailout gave Chrysler leverage with the union. There’s some wisdom there, I think, in that it’s in large part the higher wages that the big three pay their union employees that make them unprofitable vis-à-vis BMW, Toyota, and other manufacturers that make products in the United States.
The average auto worker for the big three makes over 75 dollars an hour; for the others, over 45, so this isn’t a living wage issue.
The second model, used with the big banks, is to loan the money to the recipients directly. In this model, the government hopes to get interest on its money. The way the government chose to loan money to the banks was by taking preferred stock. If the company in question goes under, preferred stock gets paid only after every other debt the company has, which in the case of the banks would mean not at all. Preferred stock differs from common stock primarily in that it has no voting rights. In short, it provides the government with almost no safety, and virtually no leverage.
The third model, used with AIG, is to buy a real stake in the company. The company issues enough common stock to justify the payment from the government, diluting the value of its existing common stock. GM, for instance, is worth about 2 billion dollars on the market, and wants to get 25 billion dollars. After it got the 25 billion dollars, it would be worth 27 billion, so the value of 25 billion dollars of shares is 25/27th of the company, or around 93%. In short, as with AIG, the government would end up a controlling interest in General Motors, and could, theoretically, start slashing executive pay and possibly union worker pay. It could use its position to pursue goals other than profit, too, such as investing in more fuel efficient vehicles than the market really would indicate.
The reason, ultimately, that the second model carried the day with the big banks is that they didn’t want or need a bailout (at least not yet); the reason for getting them cash was to encourage them to make loans so that the rest of the economy would work better. It’s no model for the auto industry, which has come begging; if we give them that kind of deal, there’s going to be an endless line for handouts. The nation has to extract significant concessions in return for supplying money.
Part of the problem with any bailout is that it gives the bailed out company an advantage relative to it’s already solvent, not-bailed-out competitors. In short, it rewards incompetence over competence, and thereby turns the free-market system on its head.
At this point, with energy policy so important to our country, I’d rather have the country buy control of General Motors and run it in the country’s interest for a while. The country’s interest isn’t completely different than the course needed to make the company solvent, and yet it should be striking enough (no SUV production, for instance) that there are plenty of places for GM’s competitors to make money.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Future of the Republican Party
The Republican party is in shambles. It lost the presidency, at least 6 seats and possibly as many as 9 in the Senate, and 20 or so house seats this last election. More importantly, perhaps, it lost young voters, who voted Democrat by a margin of two to one. The next group of voters, those currently in high school, are largely Democrats. The only age group that McCain won are the very oldest voters.
Hispanics were another group who broke heavily blue, largely because of the rhetoric of bigots like Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado). If the Democrats managed to pass some sort of immigration reform, this portion of the electorate will not only expand even faster, but they will owe a debt to the Democratic party that will not be forgotten. Look at the way African-Americans have been reliable since the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, and you’ll have an idea of what’s to come.
Some are suggesting that the Republican Party is now doomed, either to completely collapse like the Whig and Federalist parties of the 19th century, or to shrink to being an almost purely Southern party. I think that’s highly unlikely, although it could, theoretically, break that way. The power today’s big two political parties have is substantial. On the state level, parties adapt to whatever the local situation is, whether that means Republicans becoming liberal or Democrats becoming conservative. In short, they evolve to survive. That’s the long term picture: A party will exist to oppose the Democrats, and that party will want to have the power of a major party to use state election systems to run its primaries and such, and therefore, that party will be called the Republican Party.
But, as we know, evolution is a long process.
I think the rough outline of a party to oppose the Democrats is clear enough. About half of Americans think the government should do more, about half think it should do less. The Dems are clearly the party of more, so the opposition needs to be the party of less. It’s a role the Republicans have largely abandoned recently, but it needs to be the party of small government.
The short term prospects, however, do not look good. A rather small minority of the country, but a majority of Republicans, think that the party simply isn’t conservative enough. The passage of Proposition 8 will lure Republicans into running on an anti-gay rights platform, but the demographic distribution on that issue is even more skewed by age than the overall Democrat-Republican split, and so there’s no long term future there. Fox News and talk radio have allowed the Republicans to become a party full of people who listen almost exclusively to other Republican voices. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will pull the party further to the right, and to failure.
The key to the question of how long Republicans will spend in the wilderness is whether they continue to have primaries in states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primaries. If they do, the primary process will continue to pull at least their presidential candidate towards the center, and electability. If they start clamping down on that, and many of them would like to, the country will be divided into two groups; Democrats and Independents, making up 70+% of the country on the one side, and Republicans making up the ever shrinking remainder.
Hispanics were another group who broke heavily blue, largely because of the rhetoric of bigots like Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado). If the Democrats managed to pass some sort of immigration reform, this portion of the electorate will not only expand even faster, but they will owe a debt to the Democratic party that will not be forgotten. Look at the way African-Americans have been reliable since the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, and you’ll have an idea of what’s to come.
Some are suggesting that the Republican Party is now doomed, either to completely collapse like the Whig and Federalist parties of the 19th century, or to shrink to being an almost purely Southern party. I think that’s highly unlikely, although it could, theoretically, break that way. The power today’s big two political parties have is substantial. On the state level, parties adapt to whatever the local situation is, whether that means Republicans becoming liberal or Democrats becoming conservative. In short, they evolve to survive. That’s the long term picture: A party will exist to oppose the Democrats, and that party will want to have the power of a major party to use state election systems to run its primaries and such, and therefore, that party will be called the Republican Party.
But, as we know, evolution is a long process.
I think the rough outline of a party to oppose the Democrats is clear enough. About half of Americans think the government should do more, about half think it should do less. The Dems are clearly the party of more, so the opposition needs to be the party of less. It’s a role the Republicans have largely abandoned recently, but it needs to be the party of small government.
The short term prospects, however, do not look good. A rather small minority of the country, but a majority of Republicans, think that the party simply isn’t conservative enough. The passage of Proposition 8 will lure Republicans into running on an anti-gay rights platform, but the demographic distribution on that issue is even more skewed by age than the overall Democrat-Republican split, and so there’s no long term future there. Fox News and talk radio have allowed the Republicans to become a party full of people who listen almost exclusively to other Republican voices. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will pull the party further to the right, and to failure.
The key to the question of how long Republicans will spend in the wilderness is whether they continue to have primaries in states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primaries. If they do, the primary process will continue to pull at least their presidential candidate towards the center, and electability. If they start clamping down on that, and many of them would like to, the country will be divided into two groups; Democrats and Independents, making up 70+% of the country on the one side, and Republicans making up the ever shrinking remainder.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Attack on Excellence
Scarcely a day passed in this election, it seemed, when “elites” were under attack. Sometimes it was John McCain, but more often it was Sarah Palin. Who are these people? How can we recognize and avoid them?
They are the kind of people, who like to spend large parts of their life in foreign countries, especially France.
They like the written word, and make a point of being widely read.
They hang out in places where they can talk to their fellow elites.
They have the hubris write “wisdom” that they think will benefit ordinary people, and publish newspapers to influence public opinion.
You get the idea. Bad people. Unamerican people. Er, like Benjamin Franklin.
“Elites” are an interesting group to attack. The word itself, of course, means a group of people who are simply better at what they do than their fellows. An elite soldier might not be a better person, but we expect that he’s a better soldier. The attack on “elite” politicians implies that being a politician is somehow inherently dishonorable, and that the better you are at it, the worse a person you are. If that were it, we could let it slide. But “elite” media types are also attacked, as if there was something inherently dishonorable about journalism.
Elites, of course, believe that you should be able to name a news source you read (not just listen to) if you are going to influence public policy. Nasty elites like Katie Couric. I saw Katie Couric hang out with Elmo once. Of course, PBS is run by “elites” too, so beware of Sesame Street.
The irony is that the same people who decry elites are the people who praise the founding fathers to the high heavens, even if they have difficulty naming very many of them. Not just the words or the overarching principles of the Constitution are sacred, but the very intent of the framers. But the framers were not ordinary people, plucked off the fields, 18th century Mr. Smiths gone to Philadelphia. They were elites. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was so full of himself that he cut up his Bible to make a new one that would be more authentic, because he thought he could discern Jesus’ voice.
You can see it, too, in McCain’s references to Obama’s eloquence at the debates. The word “eloquent,” once a sort of back handed compliment, like articulate (oh my god, it’s a black who can talk like a man!), became an actual insult, as if the only reason one would speak well is if one were a con artist.
There we see most clearly, perhaps, the true nature of the attack on “elites.” It is nothing more, or less, than a preference for mediocrity. It isn’t truly the people who are under attack, it is the pursuit of excellence itself.
They are the kind of people, who like to spend large parts of their life in foreign countries, especially France.
They like the written word, and make a point of being widely read.
They hang out in places where they can talk to their fellow elites.
They have the hubris write “wisdom” that they think will benefit ordinary people, and publish newspapers to influence public opinion.
You get the idea. Bad people. Unamerican people. Er, like Benjamin Franklin.
“Elites” are an interesting group to attack. The word itself, of course, means a group of people who are simply better at what they do than their fellows. An elite soldier might not be a better person, but we expect that he’s a better soldier. The attack on “elite” politicians implies that being a politician is somehow inherently dishonorable, and that the better you are at it, the worse a person you are. If that were it, we could let it slide. But “elite” media types are also attacked, as if there was something inherently dishonorable about journalism.
Elites, of course, believe that you should be able to name a news source you read (not just listen to) if you are going to influence public policy. Nasty elites like Katie Couric. I saw Katie Couric hang out with Elmo once. Of course, PBS is run by “elites” too, so beware of Sesame Street.
The irony is that the same people who decry elites are the people who praise the founding fathers to the high heavens, even if they have difficulty naming very many of them. Not just the words or the overarching principles of the Constitution are sacred, but the very intent of the framers. But the framers were not ordinary people, plucked off the fields, 18th century Mr. Smiths gone to Philadelphia. They were elites. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was so full of himself that he cut up his Bible to make a new one that would be more authentic, because he thought he could discern Jesus’ voice.
You can see it, too, in McCain’s references to Obama’s eloquence at the debates. The word “eloquent,” once a sort of back handed compliment, like articulate (oh my god, it’s a black who can talk like a man!), became an actual insult, as if the only reason one would speak well is if one were a con artist.
There we see most clearly, perhaps, the true nature of the attack on “elites.” It is nothing more, or less, than a preference for mediocrity. It isn’t truly the people who are under attack, it is the pursuit of excellence itself.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sharing the Wealth
The last weeks of this year’s presidential campaign featured the age old debate about whether to grow the total amount of wealth, or to redistribute the wealth that exists more equitably.
One of the implicit notions in the discussion is the idea that one can measure whatever it is that ought to be maximized in an economy in terms of dollars and cents. We understand, vaguely, that when our dollar becomes $1.05 after a year, and inflation is 6 percent, that we haven’t gotten anywhere, even though the number of cents we have has increased. So wealth is judged, instead, on an inflation adjusted basis.
That’s still a kind of silly way to look at wealth.
If most of your disposable income goes into buying computers and software, then you are probably much better off than you were eight years ago, and you almost certainly will be better off in eight years than you are now. Your “wealth,” at it were, is best measured in bytes and pixels per second and the like, and you are much wealthier.
If you drive an SUV to work 60 miles and back every day, you are much worse off now than you were eight years ago, but ironically, despite the recession, you may be better of now than you were two months ago. Your disposable income is determined by how much you have left over after you pay for gas, and your wealth is best measured in gallons.
If you needed heart surgery, you are better off now than you were 20 years ago; in fact, you may be alive now where you would have been dead, thanks to the advances we have made in cardiology. If you needed insurance in order to have that surgery, you might soon be dead now, whereas 20 years ago you would have been able to afford a decent level of treatment.
But, if the GDP is up, you might die with more toys. For all the good that does you.
But let’s pretend that wealth could be measured in dollars, for a moment. It doesn’t really matter how much you grow the economy as a whole, if all the wealth is with the top 1%, and the next 99% can’t afford to eat, we’d be worse off. At some point, and we can argue where that point is, wealth can be distributed so badly that it’s no good, where, essentially, we can do amazing things for people’s hearts but no one can afford it. So at some level, distributing that wealth is helpful, even if it causes a loss in the total amount of wealth.
While wealth concentration is very helpful when investing wealth to make more wealth, when that wealth is used for consumption (buying things) it is used far more efficiently the less people have. The rich and the poor both buy plates, but the rich pay 10 times as much and do not get a plate that performs the function of holding food 10 times as well. Caviar may be better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (although I’d debate that) but it isn’t worth as many times more as the cost would indicate. Each dollar owned and consumed by a poor person is worth more than each dollar owned and consumed by a rich person. When we want to consume for value (and that’s the end purpose to having an economic system) we want that money to be distributed evenly. When we want to invest efficiently, we want it concentrated. We’re best served, of course, by doing a little of both, keeping a balance. But the Free Market, in and of itself, doesn’t create that balance – it maximizes the return on investment, which means that it favors concentration of wealth. That is why government is needed to provide a counterweight, because years of an unregulated free market produce waste due to sub-optimal wealth distribution. The earlier in the process, and the more consistently this restraint is applied, the less forcefully it needs to be applied. Extreme Capitalism, like doctrinaire Socialism, turns out to be its own worst enemy.
One of the implicit notions in the discussion is the idea that one can measure whatever it is that ought to be maximized in an economy in terms of dollars and cents. We understand, vaguely, that when our dollar becomes $1.05 after a year, and inflation is 6 percent, that we haven’t gotten anywhere, even though the number of cents we have has increased. So wealth is judged, instead, on an inflation adjusted basis.
That’s still a kind of silly way to look at wealth.
If most of your disposable income goes into buying computers and software, then you are probably much better off than you were eight years ago, and you almost certainly will be better off in eight years than you are now. Your “wealth,” at it were, is best measured in bytes and pixels per second and the like, and you are much wealthier.
If you drive an SUV to work 60 miles and back every day, you are much worse off now than you were eight years ago, but ironically, despite the recession, you may be better of now than you were two months ago. Your disposable income is determined by how much you have left over after you pay for gas, and your wealth is best measured in gallons.
If you needed heart surgery, you are better off now than you were 20 years ago; in fact, you may be alive now where you would have been dead, thanks to the advances we have made in cardiology. If you needed insurance in order to have that surgery, you might soon be dead now, whereas 20 years ago you would have been able to afford a decent level of treatment.
But, if the GDP is up, you might die with more toys. For all the good that does you.
But let’s pretend that wealth could be measured in dollars, for a moment. It doesn’t really matter how much you grow the economy as a whole, if all the wealth is with the top 1%, and the next 99% can’t afford to eat, we’d be worse off. At some point, and we can argue where that point is, wealth can be distributed so badly that it’s no good, where, essentially, we can do amazing things for people’s hearts but no one can afford it. So at some level, distributing that wealth is helpful, even if it causes a loss in the total amount of wealth.
While wealth concentration is very helpful when investing wealth to make more wealth, when that wealth is used for consumption (buying things) it is used far more efficiently the less people have. The rich and the poor both buy plates, but the rich pay 10 times as much and do not get a plate that performs the function of holding food 10 times as well. Caviar may be better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (although I’d debate that) but it isn’t worth as many times more as the cost would indicate. Each dollar owned and consumed by a poor person is worth more than each dollar owned and consumed by a rich person. When we want to consume for value (and that’s the end purpose to having an economic system) we want that money to be distributed evenly. When we want to invest efficiently, we want it concentrated. We’re best served, of course, by doing a little of both, keeping a balance. But the Free Market, in and of itself, doesn’t create that balance – it maximizes the return on investment, which means that it favors concentration of wealth. That is why government is needed to provide a counterweight, because years of an unregulated free market produce waste due to sub-optimal wealth distribution. The earlier in the process, and the more consistently this restraint is applied, the less forcefully it needs to be applied. Extreme Capitalism, like doctrinaire Socialism, turns out to be its own worst enemy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A few observations from the election
Last night we had the result the polls predicted, more or less. The President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama. with about a 6 percent edge in the popular vote. During his acceptance speech he stressed that this is not an end, but a beginning, and that he will need our support in the days to come. I think this election marks a turning of the corner for Americans, away from the mere mechanisms of a republic and towards a more participatory democracy. A lot of people worked hard to elect Obama this year, and they aren't going to let it go for naught.
There are still four outstanding close senate races. Incredibly, it looks like Alaskans voted to send the felon Ted Stevens back to Washington, where he can get expelled. That will let Sarah Palin appoint his replacement... which might be Sarah Palin. It's a smart move for her if she wants to buff her resume for a White House run in 2012. Having said that, I don't think Sarah in 2012 is a winning strategy for the Republicans. Then again, I'm kind of hoping that there is no winning strategy for the Republicans in 2012. It's easy to be aghast at the fact that Alaskans voted for someone as corrupt as Stevens, but I think I'll choose instead to be impressed that they fully understood the consequences and were really voting for "Republican Senator to be named later."
In Minnesota Norm Coleman and Al Franken are locked in a tight one, with Coleman probably having the edge. Coleman would have been trounced this year, I think, by a candidate with less baggage than Franken. It's important to note, however, that Coleman used to be quite the moderate, and maybe he'll find that instinct again now that he doesn't have to feel loyal to a GOP President. We can hope. Republican moderates are scarce in Washington and scarcer still after this election, and it may be important to remind the wingnuts that the moderates can win elections.
In Oregon Gordon Smith, another moderate Republican, is locked with Jeff Merkley. Smith ran left of his record in this election. Merkley will probably pull this one out, judging by which votes haven't been counted. It's nice to see the Dem's picking up seats, but it's a shame they have to pick them up from folks like Gordon Smith, instead of Ted Stevens.
66% of people 18-29 voted for Obama. My guess is that's at least somewhat indicative of 14-18 year olds, the people who will start voting next election. The only age category Obama lost in was the 65+ one, where McCain led, 53-45. My guess is that's indicative of the people who will be dying and not voting in the next 4 years, except perhaps in Chicago. Obama's likely to be strong in Chicago even if several generations of dead people vote. What all this says to me is that the future belongs to the Democrats, and all they have to do is not blow it.
My state, Virginia, has gone Democratic in the last 6 major statewide races (2 governors, 2 senators, and 1 for 2 on the presidential.) Virginia's default color is now blue.
The Dems are going to need to get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board with major legislation, if they are to have the votes they need to break filibusters. The Republicans play a dangerous game here, though. If they let legislation through, then the Democrats will be seen as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. If they filibuster, the public may very well blame them.
Either way, it's nice to have the veto pen in the hand of an actual adult.
There are still four outstanding close senate races. Incredibly, it looks like Alaskans voted to send the felon Ted Stevens back to Washington, where he can get expelled. That will let Sarah Palin appoint his replacement... which might be Sarah Palin. It's a smart move for her if she wants to buff her resume for a White House run in 2012. Having said that, I don't think Sarah in 2012 is a winning strategy for the Republicans. Then again, I'm kind of hoping that there is no winning strategy for the Republicans in 2012. It's easy to be aghast at the fact that Alaskans voted for someone as corrupt as Stevens, but I think I'll choose instead to be impressed that they fully understood the consequences and were really voting for "Republican Senator to be named later."
In Minnesota Norm Coleman and Al Franken are locked in a tight one, with Coleman probably having the edge. Coleman would have been trounced this year, I think, by a candidate with less baggage than Franken. It's important to note, however, that Coleman used to be quite the moderate, and maybe he'll find that instinct again now that he doesn't have to feel loyal to a GOP President. We can hope. Republican moderates are scarce in Washington and scarcer still after this election, and it may be important to remind the wingnuts that the moderates can win elections.
In Oregon Gordon Smith, another moderate Republican, is locked with Jeff Merkley. Smith ran left of his record in this election. Merkley will probably pull this one out, judging by which votes haven't been counted. It's nice to see the Dem's picking up seats, but it's a shame they have to pick them up from folks like Gordon Smith, instead of Ted Stevens.
66% of people 18-29 voted for Obama. My guess is that's at least somewhat indicative of 14-18 year olds, the people who will start voting next election. The only age category Obama lost in was the 65+ one, where McCain led, 53-45. My guess is that's indicative of the people who will be dying and not voting in the next 4 years, except perhaps in Chicago. Obama's likely to be strong in Chicago even if several generations of dead people vote. What all this says to me is that the future belongs to the Democrats, and all they have to do is not blow it.
My state, Virginia, has gone Democratic in the last 6 major statewide races (2 governors, 2 senators, and 1 for 2 on the presidential.) Virginia's default color is now blue.
The Dems are going to need to get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board with major legislation, if they are to have the votes they need to break filibusters. The Republicans play a dangerous game here, though. If they let legislation through, then the Democrats will be seen as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. If they filibuster, the public may very well blame them.
Either way, it's nice to have the veto pen in the hand of an actual adult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)