How is this precisely the opposite of what James was saying? Furthermore, how is what James was saying a sensible response to what I was saying given that I said there are freer and less free markets myself?
Good post, Will. But economists do not all agree on the mechanics of free trade or how to best implement it or manage it on the back-end. Also, climate scientists may agree on AGW, but policy makers do not agree on a fix.
I think we need to make it much freer and far less exploitative. I'm still working out my thoughts on this, however. I did say in my Labor 2.0 post that I didn't think a protectionist policy was necessary to the goal of a more robust labor movement.
It's not entirely true that we're excluded from that cartel. We benefit from the cheap consumer goods and relative material comfort. What I'm suggesting is that the middle class is excluded from the real wealth and given bread and circuses to distract them, while the developing world is exploited heavily to the benefit of the capitalist class and, by extension, those of us at the circuses.
Sam - I think removing anti-labor laws like Taft-Hartley and right-to-work laws would be enough. I don't think the government needs to write new laws. The only intervention the government needs to take (and this may be less pertinent today) is against anti-worker violence and other actions taken by employers. Then again, the days of the Pinkertons may be past us.
James - I don't think government regulation is necessary to a revival of the middle class. Really, quite the contrary. The current legal regime is quite hostile to organized labor - repeal anti-labor laws and you're bound to revive it at least to some degree. Long story short, I think it's possible to A) take serious issue with how income is distributed in this country and B) at the same time look for ways that policy has created this inequality. The trick is doing it right. So often 'deregulation' and 'privatization' are just code words for new regulations or state-protectionism of specific interests. I think one reason this happens is that libertarian thought has strayed so far away from issues of class and inequality and toward a right-wing winners vs losers mentality.
You're not arguing very convincingly James. If you think there actually has been a free market than by all means, provide the evidence. I realize it's much easier to use this as a segue into smashing "every liberal" you know. And of course, I already noted that the question was the degree of freedom in markets.
Anyways, you're using a very shabby sort of argument by authority here.
And if that was shit-throwing Density then it was not I who began flinging it. If people want to come to this site and muddy up the comments with condescending drivel - or heckle authors with comments like the ones you've left me - then I see no added value in their continued presence. Fortunately cooler heads than my own prevail and nobody (or very few people anyways) is banned from this site.
But I do expect that when people comment here they abide by our commenting policy and stick to the subject at hand - not fling ad hominem attacks at the writers or other commenters, not create a climate where people are shamed for their own comments, and not complain about the 'other side'. And I've had just about enough of people pushing these boundaries and making this community a hell of a lot less welcoming for people with differing points of view.
You can contribute to the problem or to the solution as the old saying goes.
No. The issue is that you're a condescending ass whose mind is entirely made up and entirely closed. You assume that because you have knowledge of economics you must also be right and so those who disagree with you must not only be wrong, but also ignorant having drawn different conclusions from your own.
"Free markets" - and we have never actually had a free market - may be good for some people and bad for others. It's almost completely impossible to make a blanket statement asserting whether they are a good or a bad thing, especially given the fact that there is no such thing as a truly free market - only freer markets and less-free markets. It's a wonderful goal, but it's never been achieved.
So whatever. The issue I have is that you're a condescending ass. I'm fine disagreeing with people who argue in good faith, even passionately against what I have to say. I'm not fine with people who look down their nose at me.
If you want to shit in a bed - if you really must shit in a bed, then for God's sake go shit in your own.
Maybe if healthcare and education get expensive enough - and retirement becomes a thing of the past entirely - people will simply stop having children altogether. That sounds rational enough.
Or rather, only the upper class will have children. Social Darwinism at its finest.
James - this whole condescending act is getting tiresome. First of all, I'm almost 100% sure you're not an economist. Correct me if I'm wrong. Second of all, I'm very sure that I have a pretty firm grip on basic economics - even though I, like you, am not an economist. And third, even economists with vast sums of economic knowledge disagree on all sorts of issues.
And finally, I'm 99.99% sure that if I agreed with you, even if I had absolutely no knowledge of economics, you wouldn't pull the 'you have no knowledge of economics' card. This is just a way to smear people you disagree with.
So like I said, your condescending bullshit is getting old. Unlike bridge design, there is no one particular way of doing economics. If there were, we wouldn't be having these debates to begin with.
Now go sit smugly in your little bubble of self-righteousness and figure out another condescending holier-than-thou comment to toss at those with whom you disagree. It may not advance your cause, but I'm sure it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
A company, or an employer, is a single entity because it is run by singular management.
I think in the real world this is far more complex. How do boards of directors operate? What is the power dynamic between share-holders and management? How much of the basic premise of a corporation is rooted in the state to begin with?
James - really, you are so unbelievably condescending it surprises me every time. "The basics" of our economic system are in contention here and simply writing off anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant won't fly - you can't write off your opposition by calling them stupid or ill informed no matter how much you might like to. Nor have I said we would be better off without any sort of financial system. But I believe we'd be much better off without the one we have.
My suggestion: try humility. Ease back on the lecturing a bit.
Not only can capital and management organize, they are also considered a "person" once having done so under corporate charter. This hardly strikes me as free market at all - but it is very capitalistic.
On “Quote for the day”
I just thought the quote was neat given the year.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
What policy was I advocating?
"
Jason,
How is this precisely the opposite of what James was saying? Furthermore, how is what James was saying a sensible response to what I was saying given that I said there are freer and less free markets myself?
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
Well put, Freddie.
"
Good post, Will. But economists do not all agree on the mechanics of free trade or how to best implement it or manage it on the back-end. Also, climate scientists may agree on AGW, but policy makers do not agree on a fix.
"
I think we need to make it much freer and far less exploitative. I'm still working out my thoughts on this, however. I did say in my Labor 2.0 post that I didn't think a protectionist policy was necessary to the goal of a more robust labor movement.
On “On the language of assumption”
It's not entirely true that we're excluded from that cartel. We benefit from the cheap consumer goods and relative material comfort. What I'm suggesting is that the middle class is excluded from the real wealth and given bread and circuses to distract them, while the developing world is exploited heavily to the benefit of the capitalist class and, by extension, those of us at the circuses.
"
I agree. I've thought for a long time that liberals and leftists could team up with libertarians in a number of important ways.
"
Sam - I think removing anti-labor laws like Taft-Hartley and right-to-work laws would be enough. I don't think the government needs to write new laws. The only intervention the government needs to take (and this may be less pertinent today) is against anti-worker violence and other actions taken by employers. Then again, the days of the Pinkertons may be past us.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
Exactly.
On “On the language of assumption”
James - I don't think government regulation is necessary to a revival of the middle class. Really, quite the contrary. The current legal regime is quite hostile to organized labor - repeal anti-labor laws and you're bound to revive it at least to some degree. Long story short, I think it's possible to A) take serious issue with how income is distributed in this country and B) at the same time look for ways that policy has created this inequality. The trick is doing it right. So often 'deregulation' and 'privatization' are just code words for new regulations or state-protectionism of specific interests. I think one reason this happens is that libertarian thought has strayed so far away from issues of class and inequality and toward a right-wing winners vs losers mentality.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
You're not arguing very convincingly James. If you think there actually has been a free market than by all means, provide the evidence. I realize it's much easier to use this as a segue into smashing "every liberal" you know. And of course, I already noted that the question was the degree of freedom in markets.
Anyways, you're using a very shabby sort of argument by authority here.
On “On the language of assumption”
And if that was shit-throwing Density then it was not I who began flinging it. If people want to come to this site and muddy up the comments with condescending drivel - or heckle authors with comments like the ones you've left me - then I see no added value in their continued presence. Fortunately cooler heads than my own prevail and nobody (or very few people anyways) is banned from this site.
But I do expect that when people comment here they abide by our commenting policy and stick to the subject at hand - not fling ad hominem attacks at the writers or other commenters, not create a climate where people are shamed for their own comments, and not complain about the 'other side'. And I've had just about enough of people pushing these boundaries and making this community a hell of a lot less welcoming for people with differing points of view.
You can contribute to the problem or to the solution as the old saying goes.
"
DensityDuck - you are under no obligation to continue reading or commenting here.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
@James
No. The issue is that you're a condescending ass whose mind is entirely made up and entirely closed. You assume that because you have knowledge of economics you must also be right and so those who disagree with you must not only be wrong, but also ignorant having drawn different conclusions from your own.
"Free markets" - and we have never actually had a free market - may be good for some people and bad for others. It's almost completely impossible to make a blanket statement asserting whether they are a good or a bad thing, especially given the fact that there is no such thing as a truly free market - only freer markets and less-free markets. It's a wonderful goal, but it's never been achieved.
So whatever. The issue I have is that you're a condescending ass. I'm fine disagreeing with people who argue in good faith, even passionately against what I have to say. I'm not fine with people who look down their nose at me.
If you want to shit in a bed - if you really must shit in a bed, then for God's sake go shit in your own.
"
Maybe if healthcare and education get expensive enough - and retirement becomes a thing of the past entirely - people will simply stop having children altogether. That sounds rational enough.
Or rather, only the upper class will have children. Social Darwinism at its finest.
"
James K - Cowen's piece on inequality was very good.
And yes, our political system is extremely vulnerable to capture and I'm really not sure what to do about it either.
On “On the language of assumption”
Francis - huzzah. Very well said.
James - cheerio.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
James - this whole condescending act is getting tiresome. First of all, I'm almost 100% sure you're not an economist. Correct me if I'm wrong. Second of all, I'm very sure that I have a pretty firm grip on basic economics - even though I, like you, am not an economist. And third, even economists with vast sums of economic knowledge disagree on all sorts of issues.
And finally, I'm 99.99% sure that if I agreed with you, even if I had absolutely no knowledge of economics, you wouldn't pull the 'you have no knowledge of economics' card. This is just a way to smear people you disagree with.
So like I said, your condescending bullshit is getting old. Unlike bridge design, there is no one particular way of doing economics. If there were, we wouldn't be having these debates to begin with.
Now go sit smugly in your little bubble of self-righteousness and figure out another condescending holier-than-thou comment to toss at those with whom you disagree. It may not advance your cause, but I'm sure it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
On “On the language of assumption”
I think in the real world this is far more complex. How do boards of directors operate? What is the power dynamic between share-holders and management? How much of the basic premise of a corporation is rooted in the state to begin with?
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
James - really, you are so unbelievably condescending it surprises me every time. "The basics" of our economic system are in contention here and simply writing off anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant won't fly - you can't write off your opposition by calling them stupid or ill informed no matter how much you might like to. Nor have I said we would be better off without any sort of financial system. But I believe we'd be much better off without the one we have.
My suggestion: try humility. Ease back on the lecturing a bit.
On “On the language of assumption”
Not only can capital and management organize, they are also considered a "person" once having done so under corporate charter. This hardly strikes me as free market at all - but it is very capitalistic.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Well I think you just stumbled on a pretty fundamental problem there. And a big part of the inequality crisis in this country.
"
I wish I knew. Love your gravatar by the way.
"
Jaybird - most of us were not bailed out by the federal government. That's political inequality, or one example of it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.