Either Clive Crook can't do the math or he understands MMT, and I don't think it is the latter.
The policy agenda this seems to recommend would focus on improving the schools that serve low-income families, and on raising the incomes of the households concerned -- through lower taxes and higher wage subsidies. The study also backs efforts to get more women into the workforce and to enable people to move from irregular or part-time employment to proper jobs.
Well said -- but this isn't what springs most readily to mind, in the U.S. at any rate, when the discussion turns to inequality. That conversation isn't mainly about poverty and low incomes; it's preoccupied with the depredations of the 1 percent.Is Crook suggesting, with MMT, that taxes don't fund spending? I doubt it since he has never taken that position previously.
So the conclusion is that he doesn't get the argument that to fund addressing inequality at the bottom either the deficit must increase, other spending has to be cut or taxes have to rise. Do the math.
Many Americans are of the view that the top of the town can afford to pay more taxes rather than increase the deficit, which remains unpopular due to ignorance, or making spending cuts elsewhere in an already tight budget.
Crook seems to be implying that the math is irrelevant here and that the "depredation" of the rich is due to envy, which is the belief of most of the rich. Well, he is writing for Bloomberg, after all, so that is his audience — the rich and the wannabe rich.
A Bad Case of Piketty Syndrome
Clive Crook
"it's preoccupied with the depredations of the 1 percent."
ReplyDeleteThat's just math. If you want to reduce inequality, you have to go after the rich. Doubling the income at the bottom barely makes a dent in Gini.
In addition, giving the poor more money beyond a certain subsistance level does not make them happier. What does make them happier is reducing inequality. All explained by Richard Wilkinson, who you have posted previously.
The Crook article talks a lot about growth, but as Sandwichman has pointed out, growth may not be environmentally sustainable.
Crooks needs to listen to Wilkinson and Sandwichman.
"which remains unpopular due to ignorance, "
ReplyDeleteC'mon here Tom.... something cannot be unpopular due to ignorance. It is unpopular due to libertarianism. ... the libertarians yes can be ignorant. ..
What is the order?
...."Truth" - unpopular due to ignorance (ignoring) ....!
ReplyDeleteit goes from ignorance to libertarianism and then from libertarianism to being unpopular imo...
ReplyDeleteif libertarians were not ignorant, then they probably wouldnt be libertarians and they would not have a problem with state currency and then seeing our govt institution as spending first...
for libertarians (again these people are ignorant of much) it is either subject ourselves to metals or govt has to be seen as borrowing...
American culture is libertarian (classical liberal), having been founded as a reaction to British conservatism and autocratic government. But neither are they anarchistic to the degree of being against government. They want limited government.
ReplyDeleteThis bias leads to ignorance about the role of government socially, politically and economically, so they can be sold a program of "small government" as being equal to limited government. Small government implies minimal government intrusion socially, politically, and economically. Limited government means limiting government to its necessary functions socially, politically and economically.
This is a problem because most people are ignorant of what government can do socially, politically, and economically to lay the foundation for a good society.
On the other hand, some people take advantage of this to shape policy not toward laying such a foundation but advancing the interests of the powerful.
One of the chief means is the government as big household or firm analogy. Another is just deserts based on specious reasoning.
If Americans didn't have a strong bias toward individualism these ploys would not be as effective.
Matt, I think Tom has it about right when he writes "ignorance". The so-called libertarians, actually reactionary nanny state-capitalists, win almost every argument because there is no counter argument. If you only ever hear one side, or half a story, that is pretty much the definition of ignorance. I don't think the so-called libertarians are ignorant. They may be, in your words, true believers. But true believers of what? They almost certainly understand that their policies won't bring about the desired change they claim will result. They know it will end up in the "libertarian paradise" (your excellent phrase) of a feudal society, with complete misery for most of the people.
ReplyDeleteWe give the so-called libertarians too much credit, as if their pro-corporate, anti-government ideas are in fact popular. They're not. The only issues on which they're very popular are traditional progressive ones: civil liberties, criminal justice, war and militarism (I won't say defence) and foreign affairs.
Even with the mass propaganda, it's somewhat shocking that the public, whether in the US, UK or anywhere else, are always far, far to the left of the mainstream political parties. Never forget, even with all the hysterical propaganda about communist-style national health care, most Americans wanted a single payer national heath system. Amazing!
Tom, all this stuff about about classical liberalism and libertarianism is a red herring. Classical liberalism was a reaction to the great concentrations of power of the day: the great land owners, the church, the monarchy, etc, all within a pre-capitalist (or at least pre-industrial capitalist) historical context.
Modern classical liberalism would be a modern day version of its older brother: pro-market, pro-trade, anti-trust, anti-rent, anti-WTO, anti-IMF, anti-World Bank, anti-war, anti-militarist, anti-imperialist, etc.
Classical liberalism was the child of a different time and different context. The idea that it is relevant today is a ruse. Many of its ideals are permanent, but its promotion of extremely limited government in today's world is wrongheaded.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the idea of "individualism" is a myth, although a warped mythology has been built around the idea.
Individualism, not the exaggerated and frankly comical imposture, does seem to be an American trait, and a very good one on the whole.
For example, there isn't all that fawning deference in the US that we still have in the UK. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is the case that the rightwing Republican Tea Party crowd and libertarians are an accurate reflection of the "individualist" ideal.
The great progressive populists are probably closer to the spirit of "individualism" as any so-called libertarian. People instinctively understand that there is no individualism in a society at war with itself. Asked what period best describes the American ideal, most Americans say the fifties. Granted there's a lot of mythology around the fifties, and the post-war, post- depression context is important, but it is interesting to note that economically it was a more equal society. That is, the spirit of individualism (both the good and the bad aspects) thrives in a more equal society.
Tom, all this stuff about about classical liberalism and libertarianism is a red herring. Classical liberalism was a reaction to the great concentrations of power of the day: the great land owners, the church, the monarchy, etc, all within a pre-capitalist (or at least pre-industrial capitalist) historical context.
ReplyDeleteModern classical liberalism would be a modern day version of its older brother: pro-market, pro-trade, anti-trust, anti-rent, anti-WTO, anti-IMF, anti-World Bank, anti-war, anti-militarist, anti-imperialist, etc.
Classical liberalism was the child of a different time and different context. The idea that it is relevant today is a ruse. Many of its ideals are permanent, but its promotion of extremely limited government in today's world is wrongheaded.
Being an American and somewhat a student of history, I beg to disagree. American was founded on classical liberal principle of the enlightenment and most Americans absorb the 18th century political theory though culture and institutions, including education. Libertarians of the right are conservative, actually revanchist, in this regard, which is why they place so much emphasis on "taking our country back" by returning to the principles on which the country was founded.
Americans are also a unique type of individualists in today's world, because of the developed countries America alone when through a frontier period in recent history and the myth of the frontier is still a major force shaping American culture.
Americans are culturally and institutionally very different from other countries, even through they are part of Western civilization. They believe that they are special (exceptional) because they have a mission from God to take their pushing the envelope of Western civilization to the rest of the world. This is the driving force of neoconservatism, for instance. As a veteran, I can tell you that it what American troops are told they are doing.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I was unclear. I'll put it in the following terms. If we could somehow dig up the classical liberals and enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century, the founding founders of the United Sates, would they be pleasantly surprised or would they be horrified?
They'd probably be overjoyed by the spread of the republic from ocean to ocean, but saddened by its failure to spread north and south. That is, spreading of western (Christian) civilisation, with a superiority complex. All that is undeniable. However, in terms of the economic sphere, they'd probably think it no different to slavery. And, what is unbearably worse, white slavery at that!
Yes, there were classical liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and his fellow founding fathers like Washington, Madison, Adams, etc, who were imperialists and genocidal maniacs. Yes, the United States was built on ideas of manifest destiny and conquering the whole American landmass, both north and south, as a prelude to something even greater. All that is true, and more.
It is not sensible to separate classical liberalism in theory and in practice, nor is it sensible to separate enlightened classical liberalism with the reactionary classical liberalism that was part of the whole. The racism, genocide and imperialism cannot be separated from the enlightened bill of rights and constitution.
What I'm saying is that the classical liberal ideals today's Americans (or anybody for that matter) have absorbed like osmosis are not applicable to today's world. These ideals were applicable to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Jefferson and company would agree. Jefferson advocated a rebellion every twenty years, so would not be enamoured with his modern day Americans clinging on to ideas fit for an eighteenth century agricultural economy dominated by tobacco and cotton.
Why Americans (and others) are clinging to ideals from a different age is another matter. Latent racism, racial superiority, civilising missions? Possibly, but they are also shaped by an economy which is deliberately pitting people against each other. The result is predictable. Atavistically, people latch on to the the ideals that are at the heart of the mythology of America and western civilisation, not to the ideals of the civil rights movement and the anti-imperialist league.
What happened historically is that classical liberalism was unsustainable politically and was modified to include social liberalism and view of political liberalism that combines economic liberalism with social liberalism with an expanded view of civil rights and social justice. There has been a dialectical exchange since then. Presently, this is the difference between neoliberalism and social democracy, for example.
ReplyDeleteHistory has a liberal bias but liberalism is not monolithic but rather highly nuanced.
Presently, the entire world is operating based on liberalism for the most part. That seems to be largely settled.
But liberalism admits of many ways and levels of interpretation, often involving the conflict of rights. For example, one of the major conflicts is whether property rights are equal to human rights or even superior to them. Then there is the question as to what rights are as rules of the game.
These are ethical, legal, and political issues that have economic and social ramifications, so economic and social factors play a significant part in their determination. Different parties have different views on this and mount different arguments.
No political system has yet resolved this in a satisfactory way for the people of that society.
Americans have a particular angle on this that is not homogenous but similar enough to be called "American" in that it is historically determined and is a foundational aspect of the culture.
Americans are also wildly evangelical about it and believe as a country that "our" collective mission is to enlighten the world based on "our" views that are generally share, like the interdependence of the American version of "democracy" and the American version of "capitalism."
There is a whole propaganda apparatus selling this 24/7. What could go wrong?
If we could somehow dig up the classical liberals and enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century, the founding founders of the United States, would they be pleasantly surprised or would they be horrified?
ReplyDeleteWhat would Jesus think of Christianity if he were to return?
I don't think that either would recognize what is happening now as related to their times and would be horrified by some things and amused by others.
"The White Man goes into his church and talks about Jesus. The Indian goes into his tipi and talks with Jesus."
— Chief Quanah Parker, Commanche
Son of Peta Nocona, Comanche Chief and Cynthia Ann Parker (the "White Squaw")
"What happened historically is that classical liberalism was unsustainable politically and was modified to include social liberalism and view of political liberalism that combines economic liberalism with social liberalism with an expanded view of civil rights and social justice."
ReplyDeleteClose to what the anarchist thinker Rudolf Rocker said about liberalism being destroyed on the rocks of the emerging capitalism.
It was thought that you could have one or the other. In the end, we got this mishmash of liberal capitalism, which is finding itself being destroyed by the same rocks yet again. It is not impossible to have both, but only at the expense the existing capitalism, replacing it with something more humane, the kind of capitalism Keynes advocated.
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. ― G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
ReplyDeleteThe same can be said for the liberal ideal.
As I have said previously, the level of collective consciousness is not advanced enough to scale these ideals.
The success of both depends in the level of unconditional love.
Without wishing to be controversial or disrespectful, I guess I think of the political compass as something like a flypaper – we just get stuck somewhere. Our little tower has tiny slits cut in it, and what we see of the world is dependent upon which slit on the spiral staircase we are looking out of. I suppose I may as well say it is a lighthouse because there is light at the top. In terms of quantum mechanics, we are in many places at the same (T)ime but don't realise it.
ReplyDeleteHuman consciousness is such that when someone tells us something, we accept it as a fact if we like the feel of it – our brain contains thousands of such 'facts' we have never verified for ourselves, and will never verify (happily, because it would occupy a whole life). These constitute our idealistic and mental reality, and are materialised because of desire. Seeing this, we say that what we see in front of our eyes is real.
The question is: 'is a human being the sum total of these facts – or something else'?
The Tibetans have a little meditation for all of this: press CTRL Z on your keyboard and whoosh!! - it takes you all of the way back! The universe disappears along with your body. There you are – a consciousness floating in an absolute void. Who are you? What do you want? Where did you come from, where do you go? What will happen to you? Even the cavemen asked this. The billions and billions of human beings who have come and gone on the face of this earth. Listen! There is a voice that we ignore. And yet on its breath rides our being. Take a walk down the aisle of the terminally ill.
On the outside is the dream of our Age. Our 'explanation' where we explain everything away. We are very good at explaining everything away. Well, that's what I see out of my little window this morning, anyway ….
"is a human being the sum total"
ReplyDeleteJR, Paul taught that a MAN and hence the MANKIND that comes out of him was created in the "image of God"... 'image' meaning 'simulate'... ("ALL is out of God")
So it is perhaps not really "a human being" which is "the sum total" but imo rather all of us (man and thus mankind that comes out of him) which perhaps can be looked at as at least a simulation of "the sum total"... and not all of this total is 'good' I'm afraid...
"What would Jesus think?"
I get the idea that He would not be exhibiting a complete understanding of ALL he was observing just like you can read in the 4 accounts of his life in the so called 'gospels'... He was NOT created in the 'image of God' like we (man and mankind) were (His mother "never knowest a man", while ours certainly have...), .... He is the image of the invisible God, "the One in whom the entire complement of the Diety delighteth to dwell bodily..." 'complement' meaning 'the part that remains" (in God) it is not "out of Him"... iow it is what is remaining concealed within God...
We (man and thus mankind) have been given a different perspective than Jesus had (has?)... we get to watch the whole show so to speak ... again, not all of it is good I'm afraid....
Not all of it is good, but I still submit we (mankind) have been given authority to deal with this as best we can thru imposition of socio-economic justice via our institutions of civil govt, subject only to real/earthly constraints (and death still for now) ... the large cohort of moron libertarians among us being a major handicap for team mankind currently ...
Basically, I agree Matt: 'the human being creates the wars, and when they get sick of all of the destruction and mayhem, they create the peace'. Our responsibility, our mad, bad, good, excellence, craziness, in both – don't blame it on the stars or Divinity.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the visible creation is infinite, right in front of my eyes; and yes it is a veil over the 'Father'. Two eyes for the outside where the opposites are in motion; one eye for the inside where the “body is full of light'. I do not know for sure, but from what he said about 'white stone', 'celestial music', 'manna from heaven' and 'the word' I would think that Christ was teaching people how to go inside and see for themselves, the pure Being within. And that has always been the hallmark of a Teacher – not really theory or concepts, belief.
People do not understand how their heart is an organ of vision – its focus is singular and it knows exactly what it wants. Like a busy little bee searching out the nectar. Mind sees through concepts but is unable to see what the heart knows. First comes the experience, then mind catches up later! Upside down knowledge huh!!
MNE is a great website – many sincere thanks to all who contribute here! I really would like people to understand the skin of the earth and its resources, and human values and capability are a natural constraint; but $money is not. Kindness, generosity, respect can easily be funded; the real potential, the real wealth is in each human being; people love to learn, and the sky is the limit!