I am just finishing up "When The Lights Went Out" by Andy Beckett, a book about Britain's economic and cultural malaise (my characterization, not the author's) in the 1970s. It is a very poor book for many reasons, only some of them ideological. While the book is rarely overtly political, the author is a left-winger, and its interesting to get a glimpse into the left-wing mindset.
This is the most telling quote. It pertains to some affluent, politically active right-wingers, the McWhirters, and how they made their money:
"[the McWhirters were] the co-editors of The Guinness Book of World Records and the cold but compelling stars of its television spin-off Record-Breakers -- both of which put an anti-egalitarian emphasis on ranking individual achievement..." (emphasis added).
This is a remarkable statement. The author is explicitly critical of celebrating individual achievement. Apparently, it is "anti-egalitarian" to acknowledge somebody's accomplishment. This is such a quintessentially left-wing statement, combining all the nihlism that the left embodies: disdain for the individual, denigration of achievement, and viewing excellence as a form of agression. Apparently, the author would be more comfortable with a show celebrating medicority and dependence.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Krugman to Opponents: Please Stop Thinking
Krugman's economic policies virtually always entail taking money from responsible, hard-working people to help spendthrifts. This obviously raises certain moral issues, most notably whether responsible people should suffer to help the irresponsible. I suppose that reasonable people could disagree on this issue, but Krugman doesn't even discuss it. Instead, when faced with thorny moral issues, Krugman has repeatedly said that "economics is not a morality play" (emphasis in original)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/economics-is-not-a-morality-play/
Krugman's assertions that economics isn't a morality play always take place in the context of income redistribution. Opponents of Keynesian policies argue that aside from being economic suicide, its profoundly unethical to redistribute income from the responsible to the irresponsible. Krugman's response is fairly summarized as "distribution of income doesn't matter; all that matters is facilitating economic growth."
This statement is both wrong and massively dishonest. Krugman's position is that there is no moral dimension to economic growth, and that moral considerations are subordinate, indeed perhaps irrelevant to, economic questions. However, moral questions inhere in economics. Slavery is primarily an economic phenomenon. I cannot imagine Krugman, or anyone else, arguing that the morality of slavery is irrelevant because "economics is not a morality play." The same can be said for any number of other issues -- child labor, environmental issues, labor vs. capital, etc. To deny that there are any moral issues involved in the questions of economic policy is absurd on its face.
Krugman's position is also incredibly dishonest. Krugman, and the left generally, has long argued that economic growth is less important than equality, and, that growth should be sacrificed for equality. In other words, according to the left, there is a moral dimension to economics, specifically the distribution of income -- too much inequality is, as a moral matter, bad. After arguing that the distribution of income is of great moral significance, and something worth sacrificing growth for for decades, Krugman now wants to pretend that the morality of a given income distribution is irrelevant, and should not even be discussed.
The reason is obvious. The left has advocated redistributing wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" for decades. There is at least some moral sense to this position -- helping the less fortunate is a humane act. So, Krugman, et al could grandstand how their redistributionist polices were moral endeavors, and that they should be applauded for overcoming greed and helping the poor.
But, the redistribution that Krugman is now advocating isn't from the rich to the poor, its from the responsible to the irresponsible. Instead of helping a single mother, or a poor senior citizen, Krugman is advocating bailing out the UAW, banks that should have failed, and people who bought homes that they couldn't afford, destroying responsible peoples' wealth in the process.
The redistribution that Krugman advocates has been stripped of any moral basis. The narrative is no longer helping the helpless, but rather helping the reckless and the greedy. When confronted with policies' gross immorality, Krugman tries to pretend that such moral questions simply do not matter.
But, either income distribution has a moral dimension or it does not. If Krugman believes that there is no moral dimension to the trade-off between efficiency and equality, and the resulting distribution of income, then the entire rationale for the welfare state disappears, as there is nothing less moral about high levels of inequality than low levels of inequality. If however, as Krugman generally argues, certain distirbutions of income are more ethical than others, then Krugman has to defend the morality of the redistribution that he is advocating.
Instead of actually defending his position, Krugman, is as his wont, dodges the issue, simply relying on the glib, dishonest, hypocritical, and thoughless statement that "economics is not a morality play." Krugman is inviting his readers not to think. What's distressing is how many liberals have RSVPed yes.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/economics-is-not-a-morality-play/
Krugman's assertions that economics isn't a morality play always take place in the context of income redistribution. Opponents of Keynesian policies argue that aside from being economic suicide, its profoundly unethical to redistribute income from the responsible to the irresponsible. Krugman's response is fairly summarized as "distribution of income doesn't matter; all that matters is facilitating economic growth."
This statement is both wrong and massively dishonest. Krugman's position is that there is no moral dimension to economic growth, and that moral considerations are subordinate, indeed perhaps irrelevant to, economic questions. However, moral questions inhere in economics. Slavery is primarily an economic phenomenon. I cannot imagine Krugman, or anyone else, arguing that the morality of slavery is irrelevant because "economics is not a morality play." The same can be said for any number of other issues -- child labor, environmental issues, labor vs. capital, etc. To deny that there are any moral issues involved in the questions of economic policy is absurd on its face.
Krugman's position is also incredibly dishonest. Krugman, and the left generally, has long argued that economic growth is less important than equality, and, that growth should be sacrificed for equality. In other words, according to the left, there is a moral dimension to economics, specifically the distribution of income -- too much inequality is, as a moral matter, bad. After arguing that the distribution of income is of great moral significance, and something worth sacrificing growth for for decades, Krugman now wants to pretend that the morality of a given income distribution is irrelevant, and should not even be discussed.
The reason is obvious. The left has advocated redistributing wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" for decades. There is at least some moral sense to this position -- helping the less fortunate is a humane act. So, Krugman, et al could grandstand how their redistributionist polices were moral endeavors, and that they should be applauded for overcoming greed and helping the poor.
But, the redistribution that Krugman is now advocating isn't from the rich to the poor, its from the responsible to the irresponsible. Instead of helping a single mother, or a poor senior citizen, Krugman is advocating bailing out the UAW, banks that should have failed, and people who bought homes that they couldn't afford, destroying responsible peoples' wealth in the process.
The redistribution that Krugman advocates has been stripped of any moral basis. The narrative is no longer helping the helpless, but rather helping the reckless and the greedy. When confronted with policies' gross immorality, Krugman tries to pretend that such moral questions simply do not matter.
But, either income distribution has a moral dimension or it does not. If Krugman believes that there is no moral dimension to the trade-off between efficiency and equality, and the resulting distribution of income, then the entire rationale for the welfare state disappears, as there is nothing less moral about high levels of inequality than low levels of inequality. If however, as Krugman generally argues, certain distirbutions of income are more ethical than others, then Krugman has to defend the morality of the redistribution that he is advocating.
Instead of actually defending his position, Krugman, is as his wont, dodges the issue, simply relying on the glib, dishonest, hypocritical, and thoughless statement that "economics is not a morality play." Krugman is inviting his readers not to think. What's distressing is how many liberals have RSVPed yes.
Krugman Is Too Short to Be a Good Economist
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/the-war-on-demand/
I would define intellectual honesty as engaging with your opponents' arguments, either showing why they are wrong, or conceding that they are correct, and changing your opinions accordingly.
Krugman, naturally, apparently feels differently. He doesn't deign to actually engage with his opponents' arguments. Instead, he asserts that their arguments are based strictly on morality. In other words, he engages in wild speculation as to his opponents' subjective state of mind, rather than actually discussing the objective merits of their position. In fact, by assumption, Krugman's opponents don't even think, just blindly lashing out in anger at the truth he bestows upon them.
As you read this column, you'll learn nothing about economics, but plenty about Krugman's smug assumptions and failure to engage with his opponents' arguments.
"It’s becoming clear to me that a substantial number of writers on economics find the whole idea that the economy can suffer because people are too thrifty, insufficiently willing to spend, deeply repugnant."
This is a classic ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is calling them irrational. If Krugman's opponents are wrong, he should focuse on showing why they are wrong, not stating they're unduly emotional.
And, you'll note the implicit assumption here, namely that because his opponents' arguments coincide with their moral beliefs, they aren't to be taken seriously. But, an argument can be supported by both moral and factual bases, and the fact that an argument is being made by a person who also believes in its morality doesn't undermine its veracity. Imagine if a "scientist" said "I believe that global warming is a serious environmental risk." Would it undermine his conclusion if you knew that he was a committed environmentalist that cared deeply about preserving the Earth? Of course not.
(Note: the quotes around "scientist" are because science can not, by its very nature, resolve the global warming debate)
"I’m the sort of person who finds the notion that sometimes virtue is vice and prudence folly interesting"
Its great that Krugman is just the sort of guy who loves deep philosophical explorations. But, the relevant question isn't whether its "interesing" to reward bad behavior, its whether its either ethical or wealth-maximizing. This little self-congratulatory aside adds nothing to the debate.
"but it’s clear that a number of people find that notion just plain evil. The world shouldn’t be like that — and therefore it isn’t."
Krugman here engages in an obnoxious, self-serving characterization of his opponents' thought processes. In contrast to his Olympian willingness to consider all ideas, Krugman's opponents are portrayed as narrow-minded, irrational people who are too stupid to give complex or counterintutive ideas any thought.
In fact, there are hundreds of free-market economists who have thought deeply about the failures of Keynesian economics -- they just don't believe that the Keynesiam paradigm works. Krugman's dismissal of them as unthinking, ironically, makes him guilty of the very think he condemns, namely a refusal to actually think through an opponent's arguments.
Note: Krugman makes several other assertions in this column that I will discuss in a separate post.
I would define intellectual honesty as engaging with your opponents' arguments, either showing why they are wrong, or conceding that they are correct, and changing your opinions accordingly.
Krugman, naturally, apparently feels differently. He doesn't deign to actually engage with his opponents' arguments. Instead, he asserts that their arguments are based strictly on morality. In other words, he engages in wild speculation as to his opponents' subjective state of mind, rather than actually discussing the objective merits of their position. In fact, by assumption, Krugman's opponents don't even think, just blindly lashing out in anger at the truth he bestows upon them.
As you read this column, you'll learn nothing about economics, but plenty about Krugman's smug assumptions and failure to engage with his opponents' arguments.
"It’s becoming clear to me that a substantial number of writers on economics find the whole idea that the economy can suffer because people are too thrifty, insufficiently willing to spend, deeply repugnant."
This is a classic ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is calling them irrational. If Krugman's opponents are wrong, he should focuse on showing why they are wrong, not stating they're unduly emotional.
And, you'll note the implicit assumption here, namely that because his opponents' arguments coincide with their moral beliefs, they aren't to be taken seriously. But, an argument can be supported by both moral and factual bases, and the fact that an argument is being made by a person who also believes in its morality doesn't undermine its veracity. Imagine if a "scientist" said "I believe that global warming is a serious environmental risk." Would it undermine his conclusion if you knew that he was a committed environmentalist that cared deeply about preserving the Earth? Of course not.
(Note: the quotes around "scientist" are because science can not, by its very nature, resolve the global warming debate)
"I’m the sort of person who finds the notion that sometimes virtue is vice and prudence folly interesting"
Its great that Krugman is just the sort of guy who loves deep philosophical explorations. But, the relevant question isn't whether its "interesing" to reward bad behavior, its whether its either ethical or wealth-maximizing. This little self-congratulatory aside adds nothing to the debate.
"but it’s clear that a number of people find that notion just plain evil. The world shouldn’t be like that — and therefore it isn’t."
Krugman here engages in an obnoxious, self-serving characterization of his opponents' thought processes. In contrast to his Olympian willingness to consider all ideas, Krugman's opponents are portrayed as narrow-minded, irrational people who are too stupid to give complex or counterintutive ideas any thought.
In fact, there are hundreds of free-market economists who have thought deeply about the failures of Keynesian economics -- they just don't believe that the Keynesiam paradigm works. Krugman's dismissal of them as unthinking, ironically, makes him guilty of the very think he condemns, namely a refusal to actually think through an opponent's arguments.
Note: Krugman makes several other assertions in this column that I will discuss in a separate post.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
I Think That May Be Backwards
Today, almost certainly, the Illinois Democrats will levy a 67% tax increase. Like all Democrats, the Illinois Democrats have framed Illinois' financial woes as a revenue problem, not a spending problem, so, remarkably, state spending will go up at the same time Illinois is crying poor.
The merits of tax increases aside, the tax bill was passed by blatantly deceitful means, being passed hours before a lame-duck legislature was replaced by a less Democratic legislature. More disgustingly, the governor, Pat Quinn, promised during his campaign to limit to veto any bill that increased the income tax rate beyond 4%. However, literally before he was sworn in, Quinn broke this promise, supporting a 5.25% income tax. In other words, he lied. No doubt, if he worked for Enron, Democrats would be howling that he should go to prison. But, because he's a public sector liar, he's supported by the left.
The most fascinating thing of all is that Illinois legislature outlawed the death penalty today as well. So, for followers of Illinois politics, here is the take-away: if you murder somebody, you can count on Illinois Democrats to show some mercy. If however, you work hard and are successful, the Illinois Democrats will come down on you hard.
The merits of tax increases aside, the tax bill was passed by blatantly deceitful means, being passed hours before a lame-duck legislature was replaced by a less Democratic legislature. More disgustingly, the governor, Pat Quinn, promised during his campaign to limit to veto any bill that increased the income tax rate beyond 4%. However, literally before he was sworn in, Quinn broke this promise, supporting a 5.25% income tax. In other words, he lied. No doubt, if he worked for Enron, Democrats would be howling that he should go to prison. But, because he's a public sector liar, he's supported by the left.
The most fascinating thing of all is that Illinois legislature outlawed the death penalty today as well. So, for followers of Illinois politics, here is the take-away: if you murder somebody, you can count on Illinois Democrats to show some mercy. If however, you work hard and are successful, the Illinois Democrats will come down on you hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)