Economic effects of Richard M. Nixon; Chat-GPT nibbles at freelancers’ jobs; Moyn & McManus see an imaginary spectre & call it “liberalism”; conquering child mortality; FRBB economic research...
Private Property was essential because the King claimed it was his. The Colonists fought the Revolution to keep personal possession of their property. And a damned fine thing it was. Macpherson has one of the best books on Burke.
As an Ohio native, I find Lauren Fedor's: Ohio’s rustbelt turns into a magnet for chip fabs, a display of ignorance. The rust belt of Ohio is the northeastern part of the state. Columbus is the capital of Ohio crony capitalism, coddled by Republicans since the days of James Rhodes.
Berger: It was rather a shock to economists to learn that some people think "inflation" means "prices of things I pay attention to are higher than I remember." It means there is more disutility associated with inflation than efficiency losses would suggest.
While it may not be meet to tax the wealthy for the benefit of others, believing that tells us nothing about how much the wealthy should be taxed, it only forbids one motivation for taxation. But, if we are to avoid classes with special privileges, we should recognize that as one's income increases it is generally the case that the portion of that income which is unearned income, derived from economic rent, also increases. The taxation of rent may lead to precisely the same effect as taxation for redistribution, but it can be justified as the confiscation of ill-gotten gains, the benefits of privilege, rather than as an attempt to equalize outcomes.
Okay, cousin, I'll take the bait... I agree with Locke that one has a right to the fruits of one's labor,, but I also agree with the socialists that mere ownership shouldn't generate income.
So, I argue that one has a right to that income which is sufficient to motivate one to mix labor with some property, but any income greater than that is rent.
This is exactly the reasoning. Of course, a farmer who gives no credit to his soil or to the weather isn't a particularly good farmer. In many ways, capitalism was an application of the hunter-gatherer ethos to mankind's productive capacity.
This seems upside down to me. First, I think it is perfectly great for those who are better off to pay a lot more of their better off-ness in taxes. The ORIGIN of the income should count for nothing (except that capital gains should be indexed). Second, I would be, I think, good to encourage saving/investment out of income received over consumption and we could have some interesting discussions about what is "consumption" -- education of children, education of self, gifts, legacies, SALT -- And being a consumption tax does not mean that some kinds of consumption (health care, charitable giving) cannot be favored over others.
- Is $1 earned from digging ditches fairly treated the same as $1 of dividends from stock you inherited from the great-grandfather you never knew?
- If your income is your share of the 40% return-on-equity of a monopoly business, should it be taxed the same as an equal income from a 4% return-on-equity earned in a competitive industry? (Are monopoly rents no different from any other kind of income?)
- If the income from your property increases due to someone else's action, not your own effort, do you have the same right to the increased income as you do to income from your own labor? (e.g. If the city opens a subway entrance in front of your building, your ability to raise rents will grow but you did nothing to earn higher rents...)
When Samuel Moyn says "liberal" he means "Henry Wallace style progressivism". This was, of course, far from the heart of the New Deal majority, which consisted largely of working class Catholics in the North and small farmers (white small farmers) in the South. These voters were, of course, deeply antagonistic to the Soviet Union, something Moyn doesn't want to talk about. "Even" the Henry Wallace progressives had no real interest in helping black Americans, who they regarded basically as children who liked picking cotton, or working as maids or Pullman porters. Fifties liberals "discovered" civil rights and on race were far more progressive than the Thirties leftists that Moyn romanticizes. Of course, when Fifties liberals starting trying to use the federal government to help blacks, they lost the support of the "old" Democratic Party, the working class Catholics and southern small farmers.
The idea of "liberalism of property" pervades Robe and Sword. (I finally read it.) Once a government position becomes property, the owners form an aristocracy. This is pointed out in a paragraph at the end of the book that gives examples that now have me curious. This rule applies to the liberal version of property which entails fungibility just as it applies to the more traditional version of property which may only be transferred by bloodline.
Nixon... Tax Reform Act of 1969...was for a Guaranteed Income...was against the Electoral College. On policy he was one of my favourite Presidents.
Private Property was essential because the King claimed it was his. The Colonists fought the Revolution to keep personal possession of their property. And a damned fine thing it was. Macpherson has one of the best books on Burke.
As an Ohio native, I find Lauren Fedor's: Ohio’s rustbelt turns into a magnet for chip fabs, a display of ignorance. The rust belt of Ohio is the northeastern part of the state. Columbus is the capital of Ohio crony capitalism, coddled by Republicans since the days of James Rhodes.
Berger: It was rather a shock to economists to learn that some people think "inflation" means "prices of things I pay attention to are higher than I remember." It means there is more disutility associated with inflation than efficiency losses would suggest.
While it may not be meet to tax the wealthy for the benefit of others, believing that tells us nothing about how much the wealthy should be taxed, it only forbids one motivation for taxation. But, if we are to avoid classes with special privileges, we should recognize that as one's income increases it is generally the case that the portion of that income which is unearned income, derived from economic rent, also increases. The taxation of rent may lead to precisely the same effect as taxation for redistribution, but it can be justified as the confiscation of ill-gotten gains, the benefits of privilege, rather than as an attempt to equalize outcomes.
Ah! But in saying that income derived from property can be "unearned" you are moving away from Locke and becoming somewhat... socialistic!
Okay, cousin, I'll take the bait... I agree with Locke that one has a right to the fruits of one's labor,, but I also agree with the socialists that mere ownership shouldn't generate income.
So, I argue that one has a right to that income which is sufficient to motivate one to mix labor with some property, but any income greater than that is rent.
This is exactly the reasoning. Of course, a farmer who gives no credit to his soil or to the weather isn't a particularly good farmer. In many ways, capitalism was an application of the hunter-gatherer ethos to mankind's productive capacity.
This seems upside down to me. First, I think it is perfectly great for those who are better off to pay a lot more of their better off-ness in taxes. The ORIGIN of the income should count for nothing (except that capital gains should be indexed). Second, I would be, I think, good to encourage saving/investment out of income received over consumption and we could have some interesting discussions about what is "consumption" -- education of children, education of self, gifts, legacies, SALT -- And being a consumption tax does not mean that some kinds of consumption (health care, charitable giving) cannot be favored over others.
Why should income's origin count for nothing?
- Is $1 earned from digging ditches fairly treated the same as $1 of dividends from stock you inherited from the great-grandfather you never knew?
- If your income is your share of the 40% return-on-equity of a monopoly business, should it be taxed the same as an equal income from a 4% return-on-equity earned in a competitive industry? (Are monopoly rents no different from any other kind of income?)
- If the income from your property increases due to someone else's action, not your own effort, do you have the same right to the increased income as you do to income from your own labor? (e.g. If the city opens a subway entrance in front of your building, your ability to raise rents will grow but you did nothing to earn higher rents...)
When Samuel Moyn says "liberal" he means "Henry Wallace style progressivism". This was, of course, far from the heart of the New Deal majority, which consisted largely of working class Catholics in the North and small farmers (white small farmers) in the South. These voters were, of course, deeply antagonistic to the Soviet Union, something Moyn doesn't want to talk about. "Even" the Henry Wallace progressives had no real interest in helping black Americans, who they regarded basically as children who liked picking cotton, or working as maids or Pullman porters. Fifties liberals "discovered" civil rights and on race were far more progressive than the Thirties leftists that Moyn romanticizes. Of course, when Fifties liberals starting trying to use the federal government to help blacks, they lost the support of the "old" Democratic Party, the working class Catholics and southern small farmers.
The idea of "liberalism of property" pervades Robe and Sword. (I finally read it.) Once a government position becomes property, the owners form an aristocracy. This is pointed out in a paragraph at the end of the book that gives examples that now have me curious. This rule applies to the liberal version of property which entails fungibility just as it applies to the more traditional version of property which may only be transferred by bloodline.