Redistribution, Fairness, and Stability

by Will Wilkinson on February 25, 2009

Here’s my commentary on this morning’s Marketplace

It’s really terribly hard saying anything in 300 words. If I’d had more space I would draw out how there is no way to succeed in promoting a unifying “we’re all in it together” mood when massive government intervention has massive redistributive consequences that track basically NO ONE’s sense of fairness or desert. That’s sure to be divisive. When Obama said in the campaign he meant to “spread the wealth around,” I’m sure most people took that to mean downward redistribution meant to rectify either the unfairness of rising inequality, the unfairness of the fact that some people are struggling for no fault of their own, or both. But bailouts of all sorts–to banks, to car companies, to underwater homeowners–spreads the wealth around in an entirely different way. “Investment” in the “green economy” spreads the wealth around. Increasing the size of the military spreads the wealth around. And so on. None of this accords with any coherent notion of fairness. And the scale of Obama’s initiatives do badly unsettle the structure around which people build expectations, and that’s an independent source of unfairness. We desperately need better framework rules for both private and public finance. It would be silly to oppose serious structural reform. But what we’re getting is the kind of half-panicked, half-opportunistic myopic intervention that breeds future half-panicked, half-opportunistic intervention. That is the opposite of what we need.

  • erutan
    If things weren't so dire I'm sure he'd prefer to have a more classic liberal redistribution. =p

    That said I'm a bit leery of some aspects of the plan, I can see the need for tax cuts, and most of the spending I'm cool with. I'm 27, no mortage or dependents - self-sufficient and save a good chunk of my income for someone my age, no credit card debt, went to a community college before university so my loans are manageable, etc. I have somewhat mixed feelings on the whole bailout of bankers and auto-workers - I do believe in helping out those the system has failed, less so for those whose greed led them to where they are (though faulty financial advice on mortages etc is a definate grey area for buyers).

    So if I'm feeling a little wary (Californian leftist, oh my), yes it is definately something to be aware of.

    re: trains - I'm aware of the countries low population density of our country in general + crap city planning makes public transit ouchy, but after living in Hong Kong / etc then coming back to LA where rail lines just stop for no reason and entire major chunks of the city are left out... meh. Driving for 2 hours and still being in LA sucks! I for one would make use of a ~3 hour train ride to SF... hopping into Union Station would be a lot easier than going to LAX and dealing with airport security/boarding/etc.

    For weekend trips and camping out of town etc, bring on the cars! But for daily urban life it'd be nice to just do it with bikes/buses/rail and hop on a train to visit friends in SF.
  • > ... Rick Santelli ... a small flame of populist resentment shouldn't be ignored.

    How am I supposed to distinguish Rick Santelli from Joe the Plumber? Personally, I am going to ignore this "small flame of populist resentment" because it seems to be fully contained among floor traders and Republican establishment dead-enders.

    There are substantive criticisms of the Obama stimulus, namely, that it has zero connection with fostering businesses using profits to hire from an educated work force. Exiting this recession is impossible without businesses using profits to hire from an educated work force. The crudest of Keynesianism will not do it -- breaking windows for great success.

    So the libertarian response is to embrace the intellectual successor of Joe the Plumber. (Don't plead ignorance of this, I read the same libertarian blogs you do.) Disappointing, considering the stakes. I can point out at least one omission: you didn't follow Bobby Jindal's lead and rail against volcanoes and the volcanistic arts. Perhaps in a follow-up...
  • Dude, You seem not to give a shit about what I actually think. I've published several substantive criticisms of the stimulus. And I think Santelli is a douche. I was, I though, pretty mocking when I introduced him in my piece, which was about how ad hoc redistributive politics is sure to produce the resentments that produce Santelli fans. Which is true. Did you listen to it? And, like Tyler Cowen, I think volcano watching is a fine thing for the government to do. But then, again, you don't care what I think. You think you know already based on your child's taxonomy of ideologies. There are in fact libertarians who think what you think I think, but I am not those libertarians, so maybe you should either leave comments on their blogs or start having enough respect to pay attention to what I actually say. Or just keep doing what you're doing. It's your trip.
  • I read the whole piece. I didn't listen to the audio. If there was some undulation of inflection in your voice that was supposed to telegraph your disapproval of the pseudo-populism of Santelli, I missed it. I apologize.

    I read your stuff daily, and I was genuinely disappointed that you would take Santelli's rant as _indicative_ of _anything_. I swear, I cannot see the difference between Santelli and Joe the Plumber. Maybe it was the forum, audio for Marketplace Morning instead of your blog, that pressed that choice of topic upon you, but I was truly disappointed. It is not your duty to care about my disappointment, but I read you everyday, so I have a basis to say commenting on Santelli is beneath you.

    [The "volcano" bit was unfair. I plead, I did it for the lolz.]

    I am a Leftist, but I am rooting for the libertarians in this fight. Arnold Kling's analysis is the only one that rings true (cautiously approaching sound post-Keynesianism from side of the libertarian right: jobs paid for with business profits). So I am disappointed when Kling gets recorded making a hysterical and inopportune sound-bite about "thugs ransacking my house" [why not just lay out the facts before the people who pay the bills, and let _us_ worry about how it makes us feel], and I am disappointed when you hitch a wagon, rhetorically, to the phenomena that is Republican pseudo-populism [Rick Santelli and Joe the Plumber, I guess Sarah Palin too].
  • Todd
    I agree with both Will and, particularly forkthis. Your argument against Santelli is purely ad hominem.
  • forkthis
    Dupe.
  • forkthis
    I think you underestimate the extent to which "unfair" strikes a chord with the public. Though relatively unsophisticated, Santelli is certainly not alone in his sentiments.

    Do you have some reason to believe otherwise? It seems the sum of your comment is that, because he's ineloquent and relatively uneducated, (and, as Will put it, a "douche"), Santelli could not possibly have a worthwhile point. While I might agree with your characterization, I don't agree with your conclusion.

    To your earlier point, Santelli's "unfair" and the trader's cry of "moral hazard" are not without substance. Bastiat's unseen is a real, and unfortunate, threat. Will repeatedly makes these points, and far more eloquently than I could.
  • richcromwell
    Do you genuinely consider your positions unhampered by ideology? "Opposition for the sake of opposition," etc. To those of us who still believe in limited government, Obama's speech lacked substance and support and was instead just a bunch of worn out ideological platitudes wrapped in a shiny new package. At least we admit we have ideological inclinations instead of claiming we're above it all and that only the other guys are caged by ideology.

    This brings to mind Friedman's discussion of greed on Donohue way back in the 80's.

    In closing, I realize I didn't critique Obama's speech with substance. I'm just a dude who is increasingly incensed at the the whole "I'm a bipartisan team player and everyone who disagrees with my policies isn't" narrative that's coming to dominate the discourse.
  • Frank
    So I am trawling the internet for critical opinions of Obama's speech, because such opinions are in a definite minority, and to judge the soundness of the arguments. Much like Jindall's rebuttal was pure opposition for sake of opposition, your argument lacks any substance or support.

    "None of this accords with any coherent notion of fairness"
    "Obama’s initiatives do badly unsettle the [existing] structure"
    "That is the opposite of what we need."

    Based on what? Your superior and singular understanding of economics? Whats wrong with unsettling the structure? Is it just scary because its different? Fairness is so subjective and these days partisan notion that its silly to refer it as "coherent ". Or is it that your version is the only coherent one? Does your version of fairness have empirically proven track record of economic growth?

    I would genuinely like to hear a well formed, substantiated and constructive argument. I would expect people in charge of policy not to get every idea just right, but be responsive to facts in the real world, and not hampered by ideology.
  • richcromwell
    Do you genuinely consider your positions unhampered by ideology? "Opposition for the sake of opposition," etc. To those of us who still believe in limited government, Obama's speech lacked substance and support and was instead just a bunch of worn out ideological platitudes wrapped in a shiny new package. At least we admit we have ideological inclinations instead of claiming we're above it all and that only the other guys are caged by ideology.

    This brings to mind Friedman's discussion of greed on Donohue way back in the 80's.

    In closing, I realize I didn't critique Obama's speech with substance. I'm just a dude who is increasingly incensed at the the whole "I'm a bipartisan team player and everyone who disagrees with my policies isn't" narrative that's coming to dominate the discourse.

    *I accidentally posted this as a new post instead of a response. Sorry for the duplication.
  • Frank
    Hello richcromwell,
    I didn't comment on your opinions directly, but instead focused on this blog author's. But I am interested in your idea of this dominant narrative:
    "I'm a bipartisan team player and everyone who disagrees with my policies isn't"

    This seems as struggling very hard to setup victim mentality, again opposition for the sake of opposition. This does follow what I hear described in the political talk shows, and most internet pundits. However after listening to the president during his speeches, remarks at the fiscal summit and recent interviews, its seems an awfully contrived view. Obama goes out of his way to point out there will be disagreements and that constructive criticism to keep his policies in check is welcome even necessary. There doesn't really seem to be a dominant discourse that wants to shut you up. Rather the dominant discourse wants to hear something of actual practical use from you. I guess just general vague malcontent is what we have so far from GOP leadership at this time.

    > Do you genuinely consider your positions unhampered by ideology?
    > At least we admit we have ideological inclinations instead ...

    Again its interesting that ideology seems so inescapable to you. Being a recent immigrant to this country and not having the baggage of this country's political history I consider myself a student instead of an activist in politics. I figured I'd first listen, ask around and observe. This is how I found myself posting here today. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion and I suppose its biased towards "gets things done competently" edge of the political spectrum. Thats as opposed to "doesn't get anything done, wastes money, corrupt etc.". Republican and Democrat seem so antiquated, like a grade school playground turf war. Thats another reason for my rabble rousing on the internet is to see if there is any solid arguments to keep people in power on their toes pointed towards getting results.
  • richcromwell
    Frank - I don't consider myself indulging in a victim mentality, though I see how you could reach that conclusion. I think the source of our confusion is that we're viewing bipartisanship and ideology through different lenses. My frustration lies with partisans who have a firm ideology, which is fine and which I'll address in a second, who claim that they are non-ideological and nonpartisan. Yes, Obama has rhetorically reached out to those who disagree with him, but he hasn't engaged them in an argument that changes outcomes. He and congressional Democrats asked for input, ignored it, produced a bill they wanted, as is their right as holders of the White House, the Senate, and the House, and then claimed the opposition wasn't interested in bipartisanship. I wasn't a fly on the wall in their meetings, but from my vantage these claims are about the appearance of bipartisanship and not bipartisanship. Having said that, I'm not sure bipartisanship is a good thing. Today my father passed to me the following description of bipartisanship: you mix equal parts vanilla ice cream and dog shit. The end result still tastes like dog shit. I'm not sure where he got it and if it was a Rush Limbaugh or the like, well even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.

    So, I'm not saying that my voice or the voices of other dissenters are being silenced. I'm saying that those voices are being unnecessarily demonized. Again, the majority party has the right to ignore the voices of minority dissenters, but it's disingenuous to then paint those dissenters as obstructionist, etc. They're the minority, they can't obstruct anything!

    Finally, for question one, I'm not defending the GOP. They are currently choosing to define themselves through opposition rather than through thoughtful alternatives. I have no dog in that hunt. I'm more interested in my ideological clan, which brings me to question two.

    Ideology is inescapable. Dictionary.com defines ideology as "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." That's pretty innocuous. Pragmatism, which is a very vogue concept at the moment, is a form of ideology. Belief in the power of the state is form of ideology. Belief in the power of the individual is a form of ideology. A mixture of faith in the state and individuals is a form of ideology. I'm still trying to figure out why ideology is now a pejorative.

    What does bother me is that many, not all, are attempting to define one form of ideology (liberal, progressive, or whatever label referring to belief in a more activist government suits you) as correct and not-at-all an ideology and another form of ideology (conservative, libertarian, fusionist, or whatever other label referring to belief in more limited government) as incorrect and dogmatic. Both are ideologies and both are well-intentioned. My beef is with ignoring the fact that both are ideologies and both are well-intentioned. It's difficult to have a robust, productive, and, yes, bipartisan debate when one group is immediately cast as morally wrong.

    That's the longer, and hopefully clearer, version of my argument. Sorry if I seemed argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.
  • richcromwell
    One other thing, since you mentioned you were just checking out different arguments online, my comment about Milton Friedman and Donohue concerns an appearance by Friedman, in which he was defending greed, and said, "No one in this room is greedy. It's only the other guy who is greedy." Kind of like ideologues who think ideologue is a bad word and say, "I'm not an ideologue, but that guy sure is."
  • Dave
    Good post. It rankles whenever Obama says "We're all in this together" because it feels like someone is saying, "We're going to screw you over in favor of a bunch of irresponsible people, but don't you dare complain, in fact you'd better like it." Good to know I'm not the only one. And even if alphie is right, which I think he isn't, I *still* blame Obama for crudely trying to cram a terribly annoying policy down our throats without any apparent consideration for the people who have to pay for it. You know, the ones that voted for him, like me. Grrr.....
  • Let's say the economy is a house on fire.

    And let's say Obama and Congress are the firemen trying to put out the fire.

    Could they do the job better?

    Maybe.

    Could they distribute the water more effectively?

    Probably.

    But few people would say the best course of action is to turn off the hoses and have a meeting about how to improve fire prevention regulations.

    Not if they want to be taken seriously.
  • Todd
    Alternatively, what if the house isn't even on fire? What if there was just a short circuit and all the electronic devices have gone haywire and are lighting up the place like a spastic Christmas tree. In that case, we need may need electrician, or we may just need to reset the breakers, but we certainly don't need a bunch of confused firemen with high-powered hoses blasting everything they see because everything they see looks like its on fire.
  • Todd
    You assume they are doing something somewhat sensible like using water to put out the fire. What if that clear liquid shooting out of their hoses is in fact gasoline?
  • If you and Will feel that way, Todd, then get your hands dirty and point out specific parts of the the stimulus bill are "gasoline" instead of resorting to vague, tired, ideologically motivated complaints.

    92% of Americans viewed Obama's speech as favorable.

    I'd say that's as close to “we’re all in it together” mood as possible.
  • Todd
    As for a specific example, I would contend that $8 billion slated for high-speed rail projects is likely to be a serious waste of resources. I don't think it makes sense given the distribution of American residential developments or the superior flexibility and efficiency of automobiles and air transit.

    As for the positive reception of the American public: I fail to see what bearing that has on the prospects of specific government interventions being able to help the economy.

    By the way, which aspects of the stimulus bill are you optimistic about?
  • I'd say "half-panicked, half-opportunistic" better describes the 8% or so of Americans who oppose Obama's plans.

    Times must be extremely tough in the right-wing dogma generation biz.
  • But times are great in the being-economically-literate biz, so I'm glad I'm doing that instead.
  • richcromwell
    Economic literacy is so overrated. It's much easier to just trust your gut.

    "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that," Homer Simpson.
  • Jayson Virissimo
    Luckily, we have access to economic theory and not merely easily manipulated statistics.
  • richcromwell
    I totally agree, but I'm often afraid the masses are paying attention to the latter.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: