I'm Alright Jacob
Matt Welch of Reason is far too kind in his dissection of Jacob Weisberg's predictable attack on libertarianism. Still, it's a pretty good general discussion--there's hardly a sentence in Weisberg's argument that can't be refuted, and Matt didn't have the space to go into every detail.
Perhaps the best line in the piece (which is so short you might as well read it all):
No doubt he [...] wants to use a second blip in a quarter century of consistent growth and worldwide poverty-reduction as an excuse to pretend that capitalism is fundamentally flawed, or that libertarians ever had anything to do with George W. Bush.
I can only hope that politicians won't use Weisberg's claims as an excuse to put us in a worse position.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:23 AM
10 Comments:
Its extremely silly to judge the overall health of the economic system by the events of the past two months (though would say they are more significant than a blip-not to be too Keynesian but people and businesses live in the short term). Hopefully by this time next year, the results of Henry Paulson's plan to spread the wealth around will have bridged the chasm
Its extremely silly to judge the overall health of the economic system by the events of the past two months (though would say they are more significant than a blip-not to be too Keynesian but people and businesses live in the short term). Hopefully by this time next year, the results of Henry Paulson's plan to spread the wealth around will have bridged the chasm
I've been wondering why right-wingers are so angry about the use of the phrase "spread the wealth." Isn't their argument that the free market is the best way to "spread the wealth?" (It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that taxing everyone's second $250,000 at a higher rate than their first $250,000 is "redistribution.") Interesting that libertarians and other extreme free-marketers are so angry about the idea of wealth being spread.
I think I can help you, anon #3. First, "spreading the wealth" through the free market as opposed to through the government is the difference between people being free to act as they choose (and being rewarded if they work hard or act intelligently) and people being coerced to give up their wealth at the point of a gun.
Second, the free markte creates a situation where goods are created and used more efficiently, so the overall pie gets bigger and all can do better. Government redisribution, the bigger it gets, isn't even a zero sum game--it's a negative sum game where the more the government controls, the less there is overall, and the bleaker the future looks.
There's a place for regulation--in fact, a free market demands it--and a place for government, but the idea that it has to get bigger whenever there's a problem is a dangerous diagnosis.
Free markets are defined by the government rules that create them. You don't find "free" markets in government-free states. There you find "war-lords" and gangsters who enforce their monopolies by intimidation and force.
As I said in my earlier comment, it is disingenuous to suggest Obama's comment was that he personally wanted to redistribute Joe's wealth to someone else. But he was commenting that certain progressive tax rules help "spread the wealth" within a free-market society. The right-wingers are angry about the phrase itself, as though it is a bad thing when wealth is spread around -- instead of being the most healthy thing for and the best argument for a free market.
Someone has to pay taxes to cover all of our wars and other Republican projects. I'm so sick of hearing whiners complain about how much they might have to pay on their second (often hypothetical)$250,000 like teenagers who don't want to clean up their rooms. A reasonable system of progressive taxation is NOT fairly called "government redistribution of wealth." Or are you prepared to argue that your first $250,000 is not the most important? (And no, I'm not claiming the second $250,000 is NOT important or that it should be taxed prohibitively -- but Clinton-era levels are not socialism.)
BTW, I'm probably more likely to have to pay at least a small portion of that extra tax than Joe is. I say, bring it on. I'm tired of us bankrupting the country for a temporary fix while leaving it worse off for my kids. I want a leader who will exhort us to leave it BETTER for our kids. It remains to be seen whether Obama could be such a leader. He's played it pretty safe so far. But he's clearly more likely to do so than McCain.
"As I said in my earlier comment, it is disingenuous to suggest Obama's comment was that he personally wanted to redistribute Joe's wealth to someone else."
Not that it matters, but that is precisely what Obama wants to do. People like Joe who, apparently, make more money than they need, will pay considerably higher taxes under Obama's plan. This money will go to the government, who will then redistribute it to others through numerous programs. That isn't personal enough for you?
As far as spreading the wealth, it's a good thing when it's done voluntarily. It's not always so good when it's forced on people.
"A reasonable system of progressive taxation is NOT fairly called 'government redistribution of wealth.'"
Progressive taxes are almost by definition a redistribution of wealth.
"Or are you prepared to argue that your first $250,000 is not the most important?"
I realize this is meant as a rhetorical question--do you realize it's a non sequitur? (I would like to see you run a store, though, where you can find out how much customers earn, and then charge them according to how much value they place on their money.)
"BTW, I'm probably more likely to have to pay at least a small portion of that extra tax than Joe is. I say, bring it on."
No one is stopping you from paying as much taxes as you want. What makes you unhappy is other people aren't forced to pay that same amount. I'm fighting for your freedom to keep your money; you're fighting for the government to say it's not your money in the first place.
"I'm tired of us bankrupting the country for a temporary fix while leaving it worse off for my kids."
They've been saying that for quite a while, but kids keep growing up to greater wealth and health. I'm not saying it will last forever, but I don't see a better era ahead if taxes get higher.
"I want a leader who will exhort us to leave it BETTER for our kids."
Every politician says that. It's the ones who then reach into my pocket whom I don't trust.
I take it from your final comment that you are in the $250,000 plus range. Congratulations.
Here is Adam Smith on the subject: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than that proportion."
Leaving aside the laws and times of Adam Smith, let me note that, at present, the top 1% of earners make about 19% of the income and pay about 37& of the federal income tax, while the top 5% make about 33% of the income and pay about 57% of the income tax. But I guess it's not enough--the majority should be allowed to vote more of the minority's money for itself.
LAGuy, out of curiosity, how would you rank these three things, in order of least-compatible-with-free-markets to most-compatible (or, colloquially, most socialist to least):
(a) a rise in the top marginal federal income tax rate from 36% to 39%;
(b) the federal government instructing all major US banks that it will be taking a preferred equity position in those banks' ownership and operation;
(c) the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Post a Comment
<< Home