I don’t think that’s close to true, but regardless, it would take more than the word of Greg Mankiw, who is about as far from a neutral observer as you can imagine.
The sentence prior to the sentence referencing Mankiw references Krugman. Whether Krugman is a neutral observer is probably a post in itself but I think it's safe to say that the criticism that Will's take is limited to the word of Greg Mankiw is one that overlooks that his take isn't limited to the word of Greg Mankiw.
The problem with "exploitative" is that it strikes me as fundamentally subjective... to the point where I have been relieved (and sometimes pleased!) to have a particular job at a particular rate while someone else entirely tells me that, no, I'm being exploited and don't even know it.
We then get into discussions of psychology (and, sometimes, false consciousness!) and how my experience of a thing is not an accurate experience and how I'm too close to the process to see how taken advantage of I actually am.
Are we using a definition of exploitation that is broad enough to cover me and my relationship to my job? If the answer is "no", I'll be relieved.
Understand that, in the past, the answer to that question has usually been either "yes" or some amount of name-calling.
Sure... is the general response to heavily managed trade that actually exists to say "we need to make it freer!" or to say "it's heavily managed in the wrong way by the wrong people and we need the right people to manage it differently -- the *RIGHT* way"?
If it's the latter, I think this critique still stands.
The corporation that I work for has a handful of folks on the board and an employee stock purchase program. You can sign up and have 1% of your paycheck buy stock in the company at 85% of the lowest price from the last quarter or something like that. The most recent update letter I got pointed out to me that my stock holdings were in the double digits! I am well on my way to owning 100 shares of my company's stock!
A recent meeting mentioned a guy from a few years back who was on the board. He's generally referred to as "the hedge fund guy". He bought a million shares and was on the board. (Being a hedge fund guy, instead of being pleased with having a golden egg every day, he wanted to eat the goose.)
From what I understand, everybody on the board is like that. Shares and shares and shares and shares. They have much more of their finger on the pulse of the company than I do, and I am there every day.
There is an argument to say that the guy(s) with 1,000,000 shares shouldn't push around the guys who are working on having 100 when it comes to spending money on lobbyists. Sure. There are arguments for allowing the 1,000,000 share guys more of a vote than the 100 guys votes as well and not every single one of these arguments is either ignorant or misguided.
Some people believe that group B should also be able to use that capital to pursue their own political interests, and even call this “freedom”.
What if some of those some people are also members of group A?
Might it not be seen as analogous to unions donating to or using their own resources to advocate for political causes? Or is that so different that only someone who is dishonest or deluded would think that they'd be related?
That's not exactly the dynamic that exists in this particular case, Duck.
One of the things that makes this website a nice place is the relative absence of debris in the air for the most part.
It is a pity that the atmosphere is somewhat more turdy in recent months, however... but that's neither here nor there. I don't think that the dynamic you describe accurately reflects this particular matter.
Some of us see libertarians and conservatives do exactly nothing to correct or improve the problems with have with health care.
Sure. And some of us have written essays explaining what the best way to take care of the most people would be and explained why they think that a bill written by insurance companies would not, in fact, necessarily be the best thing for everybody involved.
"But that's just writing an essay!!!", I can hear the counter-argument now.
Yes, sure. Forgive me if I see that on par with "I voted for someone who voted for a bill that was written by insurance companies that was later signed by someone else I voted for!" in the whole "improving the problems we have with health care" spectrum.
Depends on the patent law. A patent law that says "if you discovered Widget, you can charge what you want (or license Widget out) for whatever price you want for X years. This is your reward for finding Widget. After X years, Widget enters the public domain. People can make copycat Widgets without paying a licencing fee to you." is a patent law that most people would shrug off so long as X was seven years or so. It's a compromise... given that the argument that the Patent was the only reason that Widget was investigated in the first place holds some sway.
The problem is when X becomes 15 years or, in the case of copyright, in perpetuity. Those laws are BS and I don't know of any Libertarians who support them.
(This is without getting into the sub-argument about whether it's possible to steal intellectual property in the first place that a sizable chunk of Libertarians enjoy.)
When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.
How do we get around that given our current predicament? It's not like we can say "we just need Democrats to take the House and Senate and then we can avoid such things as federal bailouts".
In the end, I am more and more in agreement with Kevin Carson that many of the gains for the corporate class in this country are due to artificial scarcities, subsidies, and rents they have captured with the help of the state.
This seems to hit the nail on the head.
Where I knit my brow is how laws that won't be yet another example of regulatory capture get passed. I don't see how that is going to happen.
I'm not trying to define it away. I am, however, trying to figure out the *NATURE* of the fundamental problem.
If we establish that the problem is one of distribution of wealth, that things would be much better if we redistributed, I'd be fine with that... but, if it comes out that we redistribute and, for some reason, much of the redistribution was rotted away by graft before it got to its final destination and, once it got there, was used in such a way that did not address the problem we were hoping to address (for example, if we gave a periodic sum of money to a homeless person who went on to spend the money on drugs and alcohol rather than on a bachelor's degree)... maybe we could agree that what we are doing is not accomplishing the things that we are hoping to accomplish and we should try something else rather than doubling down on what we're doing.
What do we want to accomplish?
Is what we are doing accomplishing what we want to accomplish?
If the answer to the second question is "no", is the main reason because of insufficient funding?
Too much focus on the collective at the expense of the individual has been done a handful of times in history as well.
Scylla and Charybdis seem a decent metaphor. Sure, let's say that life, civilization, The Children, and etc requires a balance of both.
Over time, have we drifted more to Charybdis than we have in the past?
Even if you want to criticize those for wanting to be sooooo close to Scylla that it be certain that folks be eaten, can we still acknowledge that maybe we ought to be a little less close to Charybdis than we happen to be right now?
(And if we are to err on who we are closest to... isn't it best to err closer to Scylla?)
Or would only a barbarian consider such an analogy apt?
But that’s not a very useful idea of equal, is it?
I don't know that there are plenty of different definitions of equal with some of them being more useful than others.
I can't help but think that if "equal" isn't the word you want, you probably want a different one rather than saying "I'm using the word differently, and more usefully, than you are".
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
I think it means White Evangelical Christian.
"
Instead of "Christian", you could have used the shorter term "WEC".
It would have driven the point home a bit harder.
"
I don’t think that’s close to true, but regardless, it would take more than the word of Greg Mankiw, who is about as far from a neutral observer as you can imagine.
The sentence prior to the sentence referencing Mankiw references Krugman. Whether Krugman is a neutral observer is probably a post in itself but I think it's safe to say that the criticism that Will's take is limited to the word of Greg Mankiw is one that overlooks that his take isn't limited to the word of Greg Mankiw.
"
The problem with "exploitative" is that it strikes me as fundamentally subjective... to the point where I have been relieved (and sometimes pleased!) to have a particular job at a particular rate while someone else entirely tells me that, no, I'm being exploited and don't even know it.
We then get into discussions of psychology (and, sometimes, false consciousness!) and how my experience of a thing is not an accurate experience and how I'm too close to the process to see how taken advantage of I actually am.
Are we using a definition of exploitation that is broad enough to cover me and my relationship to my job? If the answer is "no", I'll be relieved.
Understand that, in the past, the answer to that question has usually been either "yes" or some amount of name-calling.
"
I am 100% down with this take.
Part of the problem is that this is not how Global Warming Credulists treat the issue of Global Climate Change.
"
Sure... is the general response to heavily managed trade that actually exists to say "we need to make it freer!" or to say "it's heavily managed in the wrong way by the wrong people and we need the right people to manage it differently -- the *RIGHT* way"?
If it's the latter, I think this critique still stands.
On “On the language of assumption”
The corporation that I work for has a handful of folks on the board and an employee stock purchase program. You can sign up and have 1% of your paycheck buy stock in the company at 85% of the lowest price from the last quarter or something like that. The most recent update letter I got pointed out to me that my stock holdings were in the double digits! I am well on my way to owning 100 shares of my company's stock!
A recent meeting mentioned a guy from a few years back who was on the board. He's generally referred to as "the hedge fund guy". He bought a million shares and was on the board. (Being a hedge fund guy, instead of being pleased with having a golden egg every day, he wanted to eat the goose.)
From what I understand, everybody on the board is like that. Shares and shares and shares and shares. They have much more of their finger on the pulse of the company than I do, and I am there every day.
There is an argument to say that the guy(s) with 1,000,000 shares shouldn't push around the guys who are working on having 100 when it comes to spending money on lobbyists. Sure. There are arguments for allowing the 1,000,000 share guys more of a vote than the 100 guys votes as well and not every single one of these arguments is either ignorant or misguided.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Frankly, few New Zealand politicians would dare behave the way American ones do.
I would *LOVE* to read examples. This stuff is fascinating to me.
On “On the language of assumption”
Some people believe that group B should also be able to use that capital to pursue their own political interests, and even call this “freedom”.
What if some of those some people are also members of group A?
Might it not be seen as analogous to unions donating to or using their own resources to advocate for political causes? Or is that so different that only someone who is dishonest or deluded would think that they'd be related?
"
That's not exactly the dynamic that exists in this particular case, Duck.
One of the things that makes this website a nice place is the relative absence of debris in the air for the most part.
It is a pity that the atmosphere is somewhat more turdy in recent months, however... but that's neither here nor there. I don't think that the dynamic you describe accurately reflects this particular matter.
"
The successful missionaries are the ones who try to convert the heathen.
The successful templars are the ones who best hit the heathen over the head.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
After 300 comments, that ain't so bad.
I've been in places where it was a surprise if the first comment didn't include a Hitler comparison.
On “On the language of assumption”
Some of us see libertarians and conservatives do exactly nothing to correct or improve the problems with have with health care.
Sure. And some of us have written essays explaining what the best way to take care of the most people would be and explained why they think that a bill written by insurance companies would not, in fact, necessarily be the best thing for everybody involved.
"But that's just writing an essay!!!", I can hear the counter-argument now.
Yes, sure. Forgive me if I see that on par with "I voted for someone who voted for a bill that was written by insurance companies that was later signed by someone else I voted for!" in the whole "improving the problems we have with health care" spectrum.
"
Remember the "check out these WASPs" thread?
It was a while back.
If you treat people like peers, you can quickly figure out who is and who is not treating you like one.
If you treat people like subordinates, you'll rarely figure out who is and who is not a peer.
This is America. Indeed, this is the internet!
Acting like the superior of others requires a buttload more showing and a crapload less telling, these days. Certainly in this corner of it.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
“libertarianism” that favors strong patent laws
Depends on the patent law. A patent law that says "if you discovered Widget, you can charge what you want (or license Widget out) for whatever price you want for X years. This is your reward for finding Widget. After X years, Widget enters the public domain. People can make copycat Widgets without paying a licencing fee to you." is a patent law that most people would shrug off so long as X was seven years or so. It's a compromise... given that the argument that the Patent was the only reason that Widget was investigated in the first place holds some sway.
The problem is when X becomes 15 years or, in the case of copyright, in perpetuity. Those laws are BS and I don't know of any Libertarians who support them.
(This is without getting into the sub-argument about whether it's possible to steal intellectual property in the first place that a sizable chunk of Libertarians enjoy.)
On “On the language of assumption”
When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
That's Cecilia. I will likely write a post about her someday.
"
That makes sense I guess.
How do we get around that given our current predicament? It's not like we can say "we just need Democrats to take the House and Senate and then we can avoid such things as federal bailouts".
On “Liberal academics (part 2)”
If you're teaching continental drift accurately, what difference does it make if you're a young earth creationist?
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
What is political equality?
I assume it doesn't mean merely voting rights.
The ability to run for office? The ability to get a law passed? The ability to be appointed to a position?
On “On the language of assumption”
In the end, I am more and more in agreement with Kevin Carson that many of the gains for the corporate class in this country are due to artificial scarcities, subsidies, and rents they have captured with the help of the state.
This seems to hit the nail on the head.
Where I knit my brow is how laws that won't be yet another example of regulatory capture get passed. I don't see how that is going to happen.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
I'm not trying to define it away. I am, however, trying to figure out the *NATURE* of the fundamental problem.
If we establish that the problem is one of distribution of wealth, that things would be much better if we redistributed, I'd be fine with that... but, if it comes out that we redistribute and, for some reason, much of the redistribution was rotted away by graft before it got to its final destination and, once it got there, was used in such a way that did not address the problem we were hoping to address (for example, if we gave a periodic sum of money to a homeless person who went on to spend the money on drugs and alcohol rather than on a bachelor's degree)... maybe we could agree that what we are doing is not accomplishing the things that we are hoping to accomplish and we should try something else rather than doubling down on what we're doing.
What do we want to accomplish?
Is what we are doing accomplishing what we want to accomplish?
If the answer to the second question is "no", is the main reason because of insufficient funding?
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
Too much focus on the collective at the expense of the individual has been done a handful of times in history as well.
Scylla and Charybdis seem a decent metaphor. Sure, let's say that life, civilization, The Children, and etc requires a balance of both.
Over time, have we drifted more to Charybdis than we have in the past?
Even if you want to criticize those for wanting to be sooooo close to Scylla that it be certain that folks be eaten, can we still acknowledge that maybe we ought to be a little less close to Charybdis than we happen to be right now?
(And if we are to err on who we are closest to... isn't it best to err closer to Scylla?)
Or would only a barbarian consider such an analogy apt?
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Dude, nice post.
"
But that’s not a very useful idea of equal, is it?
I don't know that there are plenty of different definitions of equal with some of them being more useful than others.
I can't help but think that if "equal" isn't the word you want, you probably want a different one rather than saying "I'm using the word differently, and more usefully, than you are".
Because, at that point, I'm sooooo lost.