Proud to be an American

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47362779/#47362779

Link to President Obama advocating for gay marriage. Emotional gesture, and I hope we can let go of our hate and make this a reality.

Sillyness

On another blog, Philosophers Beard, an anonymous blogger has stolen the show. (read here Post and Battle) I shouldn't waste my time arguing, but the temptation is just too much. It's a typical Austrian type argument with "artificial" employment, which is then supported by a truism that the US was the only game in town post WWII.  I suppose, using that logic, that whenever technological or competitive change happens (and employment is lost) that the level of employment was artificial. It's just a ridiculous assertion.

Then the blogger says that the top 10% pay 70% of all Federal Taxes, and 49.5% of Americans don't pay federal taxes, without notice that those "freeloaders" below pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and other fees at the state and local level. Plus, for an honest comparison, one needs to use to the total effective tax rate between income strata-not the Fox News talking point. Perhaps there is a reason 49.5% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax? (The wrong answer is that the tax code is too generous)

<Besides, the point wasn't the level of taxation-it was the disproportionate amount of power the rich have and the fact that their interests are extraordinarily detached from the rest of us.>  He explains this away with another truism-that the "best" of us has always ruled.

Finally, I offered him some advice: check the relative wage/compensation difference in dollars between a Chinese worker and an American worker, and the consider how far compensation would have to fall to equalize the two.  If, as an arbitrary (but close) example, a Chinese work makes 5 dollars a day, and an American makes 50 a day, the American worker would need to be 10x's or 1000% (10*100) as productive as the Chinese worker to justify a shift in area of production: good luck.

Truisms aren't arguments-they are deflections from having a real discussion. Also, statistics mean nothing without context.

Bourgeois Dignity- McCloskey

I've begun reading Aunt Deirdre. Her theory of dignity coupled with liberty is intriguing. In forthcoming posts I'll summarize and comment on what I've read. (I'll be on the look out for rhetorical moves!!)

Holy Cow

15:25 Friedman says governmental stimulus in the Great Depression was desirable and necessary!

The Market Place for Ideas and Heterodox Economics

I think it would be wonderful if mainstream economics operated in the way good old Milton Friedman argues here. Sadly, the mainstream has quite a monopoly on truth.

UMKC

I've been accepted to the University of Missouri-Kansas City's iPhD program, and will begin this fall.  I hope that I've prepared myself well enough to do meaningful research.

Lately, I've been battling (internally) for the place of social justice.  I find the notion very appealing and worth fighting for, but have doubt in my mind if it can be achieved.  Life makes utilitarians out of us all at times. Maybe that's why we should be creative in the design of our institutions? (Who knows, maybe my research will bring some clarity to my thought!?)  
                                         

Marxists Have More Serious Thoughts Than....

David Ruccio is one of my favorites; he gave a speech on the relevance of Capital to my political economy class, and since then, I've been an ardent follower of his blog. Below is a quick comment conversation we had, that highlights Ruccio's sensibility, which many mainstream economists don't give credit to Marxists. (All the Marxists I know are quite sensible people, in fact.)

I don't think I made my point well enough, though.  The thesis I was trying to tease out was basically this: If enough people get screwed over, or feel screwed over, by the institutional arrangements of society, will they just drop out of them and form institutions of their own?  Can exploitation, in the Marxists, sense continue if the exploitees stop playing the game?

1. Christian says:

   10 January 2012 at 12:22 am

   David,

   Would you agree that Marxists aren’t opposed to competition and merit etc per se. Instead, they are opposed to societal structures that cause such great inequality that a greater number of members of society withdraw from formal society and join the informal society?

   Reply
2. David F. Ruccio says:

   10 January 2012 at 10:50 am

   On one hand, you’re right, Christian: Marxists aren’t necessarily opposed to competition and merit. But, on the other hand, Marxists’ opposition to societal structures that cause inequality stems from an indictment of exploitation, regardless of whether we’re talking about formal or informal society.

   The point is, the formal structures of capitalism are based on class exploitation, which allows a tiny minority to appropriate and distribute the surplus produced the majority. Ideas of competition and merit often serve to disguise that exploitation.

   But we can certainly imagine other forms of competition and merit—call them socialist competition and merit—that have nothing to do with exploitation.