Ssshhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
The only movie I saw, at the theater, between the summers of 1985 and '86 was Pee Wee's Big Adventure. I just saw it again on cable last week, and it is a national treasure.
Moving on: on a road trip to Chicago and the surrounding area last fall I and my good friend R. listened to Reason, by Robert Reich (on the car CD player). I think it was unabridged. It was thorough, regardless. Reich was President Clinton's Labor Secretary, and the whole book is a pretty good argument for that strong yet sensible brand of liberalism that 43% of American voters seem to find compelling.
I listened to it once, and that was two or three months ago, so I won't argue explicitly for or against any point that Reich made in the book. I'm not going to buy it or get it back from the library. What I will do is recall for you, enchanted reader, an argument the book spawned between R. and me.
Whether the economy is good, or whether it is healthy, are questions that have begged savage debate since the dawn of economics (I'm sure). To ask whether the economy is good right now is slightly less subjective, of the two, for one needs only to study the economy of the present. The main source of contention is the metrics: GDP, poverty rate, infant mortality, unemployment, cost of living, inflation, national debt, trade deficit; the list goes on and on. Economists seem to pick their favorite one, or the one that best illustrates the point of view on the goodness of the economy that they independently wish to espouse. All this devilry, for what's happening right now.
To ask whether the economy is healthy is to ask what all those figures are going to be like in five to ten years. Roll the bones, friends - roll the bones.
But I strongly believe that income distribution is important. Which specific metric to measure it could be debated until the cows come home, and I don't have any cows, so it could pretty much be debated forever. If the standard distribution of cows per household is your metric - okay, I'll stop.
The phrase a rising tide lifts all boats is commonly attributed to JFK. It means that as long as everybody (in the economy being discussed) is doing progressively better, it doesn't matter whose wages are skyrocketing and whose are creeping (adjusted for inflation, of course). It means that it is preferable that everyone does better in ten years, regardless of the drastic inequalities in how much better, than have some do better and some do worse. It is not the argument over the legitimacy of this claim that sprang from Reich and landed between R. and me, for we all three agreed that it is, in fact, not true. We agree that a rising inequality of incomes makes for a bad and/or unhealthy economy. What R. and I were not able to agree upon is the reason(s) why.
I think the saying is flawed for two reasons, one of which is plebian and ultimately almost invalid. R. agrees with me on this reason. The other reason is bold and insightful - the kind of thing one would, were he so quick as to think of it, write about in his blog. I was unable to convince R. of it.
The obvious flaw with the rising tide theory is human jealousy. If my inflation-adjusted income is $35,000 in 2007 and $44,000 in 2017, while my neighbor's income goes from $110,000 to $550,000 over the same time period, then although we are both doing better, I still struggle with the car note (only a little less so after ten years), while he no longer struggles with the yacht note.
Now, this sort of reptilian jealousy for others' successes is a part of human life. Mediocrities everywhere, including your faithful 'dlogger, are no stranger to it. It would be alleviated by more evenly distributing income. But it's too easy to argue against government action intended to achieve that end. What harm might be done to the overall national wealth by forced redistribution? What message does that send to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow? Not very many white people starve in the streets today, and in fact the real wages of the poor are increasing, so the market is working; leave it alone. The standard trickle-down objections.
But, and this is the second, more virile but, there are broadly two kinds of things money can buy: absolute goods and relative. A BMW is an absolute good, as is a head of lettuce, a diamond, and a blue pair of pants. You buy them, and your quality of life is as better as you feel it is. This, make no mistake, is capitalism in all its beauty or lack thereof. We could, in theory, all drive BMWs and eat fancy romaine lettuce to our hearts' content (it will never happen - more about that in a later post). But there are relative goods one can buy - political favors, labor, possibly elections - at the public's expense. That money is power is obvious to the most dimwitted among us. Each member of a group of people can't increase his power over the group; it can only be moved around. The democratic ideal is a group wherein power is shared among its members, so as long as money is power, unequal income distrubution is uneven power distribution.
The solution? Spread the money evenly, or take the money out of politics.
R.'s response? I don't think that's as important as the human jealousy thing. Pathetic.
Moving on: on a road trip to Chicago and the surrounding area last fall I and my good friend R. listened to Reason, by Robert Reich (on the car CD player). I think it was unabridged. It was thorough, regardless. Reich was President Clinton's Labor Secretary, and the whole book is a pretty good argument for that strong yet sensible brand of liberalism that 43% of American voters seem to find compelling.
I listened to it once, and that was two or three months ago, so I won't argue explicitly for or against any point that Reich made in the book. I'm not going to buy it or get it back from the library. What I will do is recall for you, enchanted reader, an argument the book spawned between R. and me.
Whether the economy is good, or whether it is healthy, are questions that have begged savage debate since the dawn of economics (I'm sure). To ask whether the economy is good right now is slightly less subjective, of the two, for one needs only to study the economy of the present. The main source of contention is the metrics: GDP, poverty rate, infant mortality, unemployment, cost of living, inflation, national debt, trade deficit; the list goes on and on. Economists seem to pick their favorite one, or the one that best illustrates the point of view on the goodness of the economy that they independently wish to espouse. All this devilry, for what's happening right now.
To ask whether the economy is healthy is to ask what all those figures are going to be like in five to ten years. Roll the bones, friends - roll the bones.
But I strongly believe that income distribution is important. Which specific metric to measure it could be debated until the cows come home, and I don't have any cows, so it could pretty much be debated forever. If the standard distribution of cows per household is your metric - okay, I'll stop.
The phrase a rising tide lifts all boats is commonly attributed to JFK. It means that as long as everybody (in the economy being discussed) is doing progressively better, it doesn't matter whose wages are skyrocketing and whose are creeping (adjusted for inflation, of course). It means that it is preferable that everyone does better in ten years, regardless of the drastic inequalities in how much better, than have some do better and some do worse. It is not the argument over the legitimacy of this claim that sprang from Reich and landed between R. and me, for we all three agreed that it is, in fact, not true. We agree that a rising inequality of incomes makes for a bad and/or unhealthy economy. What R. and I were not able to agree upon is the reason(s) why.
I think the saying is flawed for two reasons, one of which is plebian and ultimately almost invalid. R. agrees with me on this reason. The other reason is bold and insightful - the kind of thing one would, were he so quick as to think of it, write about in his blog. I was unable to convince R. of it.
The obvious flaw with the rising tide theory is human jealousy. If my inflation-adjusted income is $35,000 in 2007 and $44,000 in 2017, while my neighbor's income goes from $110,000 to $550,000 over the same time period, then although we are both doing better, I still struggle with the car note (only a little less so after ten years), while he no longer struggles with the yacht note.
Now, this sort of reptilian jealousy for others' successes is a part of human life. Mediocrities everywhere, including your faithful 'dlogger, are no stranger to it. It would be alleviated by more evenly distributing income. But it's too easy to argue against government action intended to achieve that end. What harm might be done to the overall national wealth by forced redistribution? What message does that send to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow? Not very many white people starve in the streets today, and in fact the real wages of the poor are increasing, so the market is working; leave it alone. The standard trickle-down objections.
But, and this is the second, more virile but, there are broadly two kinds of things money can buy: absolute goods and relative. A BMW is an absolute good, as is a head of lettuce, a diamond, and a blue pair of pants. You buy them, and your quality of life is as better as you feel it is. This, make no mistake, is capitalism in all its beauty or lack thereof. We could, in theory, all drive BMWs and eat fancy romaine lettuce to our hearts' content (it will never happen - more about that in a later post). But there are relative goods one can buy - political favors, labor, possibly elections - at the public's expense. That money is power is obvious to the most dimwitted among us. Each member of a group of people can't increase his power over the group; it can only be moved around. The democratic ideal is a group wherein power is shared among its members, so as long as money is power, unequal income distrubution is uneven power distribution.
The solution? Spread the money evenly, or take the money out of politics.
R.'s response? I don't think that's as important as the human jealousy thing. Pathetic.
posted by john at
11:28 AM
1 Comments
