Monday, September 29, 2014

Matt Bruenig — Cutting Poverty Is Super Easy: A Response to Sumner

I am not really sure what Scott Sumner is all about these days. Many years ago, he was like “monetary policy should utilize an NGDP target” and people were like “that’s an interesting thought.” But now, he’s kind of gone into mission creep mode where he comments on things that he’s not so knowledgeable on.
One of the more glaring versions of this creep is his armchair commenting on wealth inequality. Again and again, he has called wealth inequality data “nonsense on stilts” because it ignores the fact that wealth inequality is just a life-cycle phenomenon. This is straightforwardly false, but to know it’s false, you have to actually be familiar with the wealth data and ambitious enough to run some age-controlled wealth inequality calculations. Sumner is neither of those things.
More recently, Sumner’s mission creep has him opining rather strangely about poverty in America, with a focus on yours truly. The post is such a complete mess that I will utilize a line-by-line approach to explaining where it has gone wrong.
Cutting Poverty Is Super Easy: A Response to Sumner
Matt Bruenig

6 comments:

Detroit Dan said...

Sumner is a self-identified libertarian. Bruenig does a fine job of demolishing his arguments.

I wonder where Bruenig stands with regard to MMT?

Tom Hickey said...

Me and Modern Monetary Theory

He didn't then although he indicated interest in the post. The comments are a bit of a mish-mash.

Don't know whether he followed up on it, but he gives no indication of being in paradigm.

Matt Franko said...

this is revealing from Sumner:

"That’s not to say we can’t do anything. I’d eliminate all occupational licensing laws and all minimum wage laws and all “welfare.” Legalize employment contracts between consenting adults. No more chronic involuntary unemployment. Then I’d institute a large wage subsidy for low wage jobs. "

So at first in the para he is anti-authority (law elimination) and then somehow gets over to govt (authority) providing the wage subsidy which is the bedrock of his whole proposal...

So he is anti-authority and then almost immediately, pro-authority.... yet seems unable to discern the contradiction here...

This is like the story from a while back where the libertarian website was all pissed off because a postal carrier threw the mail in a dumpster... while authority is the only thing that would prevent that from happening in the first place...

One of the first signs of intelligence is the ability to discern contradiction... The libertarian brain sure seems like scrambled eggs...

Matt Franko said...

Here's Paul on these people:

"But sin I knew not except through law. For besides, I had not been aware of coveting except the law said, "You shall not be coveting."
8 Now Sin, getting an incentive through the precept, produces in me all manner of coveting. For apart from law Sin is dead." Romans 7:7

So with these libertarian people (in scriptural terms: "sinners"), the establishment of law itself somehow can produce within them the proclivity to break said law... They cannot help themselves...

So maybe this is why they dont want any laws? Because at some level they know that with the establishment of a law, they will then want to break the law?

So you see the cannabis laws, then all the left-libertarians (pharma associated) are all going around wanting to use cannabis?

And now we are cancelling the cannabis laws while opiates remain against the law so we see a decrease in cannabis use with these people and now a strong move towards the opiates? Because the opiates remain against the law...

Or you have anti-gun laws, then all the right-libertarians (metal associated) want to buy a full-auto conversion kit for their AR-15s? Hoard ammo? or we pass the anti-gold "money" laws so these people naturally now want gold for "money"?

Maybe at some level they know how they function like this so therefore they dont want any laws?

Because they know that they will then want to break those laws as soon as they are established?

So they dont want them established in the first place?

Tough nuts to crack for sure...

rsp,

Detroit Dan said...

Thanks, Tom.

Roger Erickson said...

Super easy? Not until actual THINKING becomes super easy.

It's easy to say everything's possible. Much harder to get people to actually achieve it.

FDR said something to that effect too.