Collective Conscious - Latest Comments

Re: Liberalism Lost

Benjamin Daniels — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:28:05 -0000

I'd still argue that "communitarian" itself is not so different from, say, "anarchist," insofar as it's a subset of what I'd call liberalism and is an umbrella for a pretty wide variety of actual policy perspectives.

As for Gingrich, no: I definitely would rather see liberalism as a Venn diagram with a large enough intersection of all its intellectual communities to be thought of as a coherent and well-defined threat in its own right, even if no group in and of itself could be called "liberal."

Re: Liberalism Lost

Anantharaman Muralidharan — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:44:24 -0000

I don't think Newt Gingrich is one to rail against "pragmatic egalitarians" anyway

Which makes it a plus point right? Besides,I dont really know how much of a liberal Freddie is. He does seem to have much stronger communitarian tendencies. (Even though he rarely does give a positive statement of his beliefs instead of vaguely alluding to them in such a way that no one can pin him down)

Re: Liberalism Lost

Benjamin Daniels — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:04:20 -0000

I don't quite mean that - I mean, to oversimplify, the people who Occupy: socialists, anarchists, left-liberals; the people who show up in Google Reader: Chris Dillow, Freddy DeBoer, Peter Frase. People who don't necessarily vote D (save, perhaps, for lack of a better option like myself), and for whom "progressive" is not quite right either? Can't we keep on being liberals, even if we are to be demonized for it? Better that, I think, than to resign into obscurity - I don't think Newt Gingrich is one to rail against "pragmatic egalitarians" anyway.

Re: Liberalism Lost

Anantharaman Muralidharan — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:50:57 -0000

If you mean people who vote D, we can call them people who vote D. Otherwise pragmatic egalitarians might work. There are all sorts of people who vote D.

Re: Distributing the Deficit, Again

Toronto Airport Limo — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:02:05 -0000

i appreciate the work nature of republications because they are raising those issues that very sensitive

Toronto Airport Limo

Re: What does it mean to maximize utility?

Xerographica — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:39:24 -0000

Pragmatarianism will allow the invisible hand to slowly reveal the ideal scope of government. A division of labor between taxpayers will determine the ideal division of labor between the private and public sectors. We have to first determine the ideal scope of government...because the scope of government is what determines the tax rate....and not the other way around.

The "who" part is also a moot point to discuss now because taxpayers are forced to pay for things that they do not value. Imagine if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA were forced to pool their donations and then elect representatives to decide how to split the pool between the two organizations. The result would be hyperpartisan obstructionism and donors would be unwilling to contribute.

If taxpayers are directly responsible for supporting the public goods that they value then it seems pretty straightforward that they will be considerably more willing to contribute.

Basically...the answers to your key questions can only be discovered once a pragmatarian system is implemented.

Re: What does it mean to maximize utility?

Benjamin Daniels — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:21:39 -0000

It's an interesting idea for allocation, but remember that a lot of the key questions will still be prior to this - ie, who pays how much, not where it goes.

Re: What does it mean to maximize utility?

Xerographica — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:12:19 -0000

A public market would simply be where taxpayers could directly allocate their individual taxes among the government organizations of their choosing. At anytime throughout the year you'd be able to go to...say...the Environmental Protection Agency website and submit a payment. People's perceived shortages of the public goods that they valued would determine how they allocated their taxes. In other words...the invisible hand, not congress, would determine the allocation of public funds.

Here are 20 questions regarding this concept... http://pragmatarianism.blogspo... They should help in painting a clearer picture of what the public market might look like. If you can't clearly see a public market then it's impossible to effectively evaluate its value.

Re: What does it mean to maximize utility?

Benjamin Daniels — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:55:13 -0000

I don't think your description of C is quite correct; first, it's hard to imagine a public market, and second, even if there was, my point is that revealed preferences and collective preferences are interdependent (ie revealed preferences are changed or rejected depending on which collective preferences are satisfied). So you can't maximize both, and you can't really think about maximizing revealed preferences in a consistent way, because revealed preferences don't exist in an absolute-external sense the way that laissez-faire advocates would have you believe.

Re: What does it mean to maximize utility?

Xerographica — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:46:10 -0000

Ben...thanks for the link. It's an interesting discussion and you brought up some good points. But perhaps it simply boils down to considering and understanding the allocative disparities (and associated externalities) between the following three allocation options.

A) The anarcho-capitalist allocation
B) The current allocation
C) The pragmatarian allocation

In Option A there is only the private market... therefore, revealed preferences would be maximized but collective preferences would be neglected.

In Option B there is a private market and public planners...therefore, revealed preferences would be maximized but collective preferences would not be maximized.

In Option C there is both a private market and a public market...therefore, revealed preferences and collective preferences would both be maximized.

So if we make the basic assumption that we want to force people to contribute to the collective...are there any rational arguments for not wanting to maximize their contributions?

It's important to consider that our current system was set in place when the parliament fired the king and took over control of taxes. This occurred 100s of years before Adam Smith was even born. The current system is in place for traditional reasons...not rational ones. Admittedly it was a very progressive move when the control of taxes was passed from a king to parliament and it will be an even more progressive move if we pass control of taxes from parliament to taxpayers. http://pragmatarianism.blogspo...

Re: ‘This is not to say that the government knows better than private markets…’

Xerographica — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:50:31 -0000

If you get a chance I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on my post where I consider the opportunity costs of public goods.... http://pragmatarianism.blogspo...

Re: Distributing the Deficit, Again

Gogocycleads — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:19:50 -0000

I agree with the other poster that childcare programs usually fall victim because newborns don't vote, right! Other educational programs that generally fall by the wayside are driver safety programs and we can probably expect to see more motorcycles for sale since helmet safety awareness programs usually get dropped, too. The reason for this is that so many riders don't want to wear them and cheer politicians who allow them to ride without them.

Re: Distributing the Deficit, Again

Miss Baby — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:15:43 -0000

Now that the government says they are out of money, I expect programs benefitting babies born into poverty will be some of the first cuts made. Programs educating young parents on breastfeeding and baby nursery ideas that are safe will most likely be among the first to be eliminated.

Re: Against Capitalism

Benjamin Daniels — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:34:06 -0000

It's hard to tell the difference whether a company is offering a meaningful ownership-control share, or whether they're offering stock as an alternative to salary. A small investment in the company can be worse than cash if workers don't get a say in management.

Re: Against Capitalism

Steve McAllister — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:33:50 -0000

Very interesting theory. It seems as through many companies are becoming more aware of this as they offer stock options and ownership to employees.

Re: Wage Divergence, Too

Benjamin Daniels — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:20:49 -0000

Sure, but why should the finance sector demand more human capital than the rest of the economy? I'd like to suggest that it's because finance is naturally a winner-take-all sector, and tight regulation is necessary to stop rentseeking behavior there. One the regulatory lid was taken off, you made a fortune if and only if you had the smartest and fastest team in New York. So salaries skyrocketed.

Contrast this to an industry where everybody who has a solid team makes money, not just the very best (say, advertising). Since 1980, the personal computer has made those industries a home for people who are tech-savvy *and* creative, but salaries haven't boomed in the same way.

Re: Wage Divergence, Too

centerist cynic — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:22:48 -0000

Another way to look at your charts is that it was from the 1980's on when banking/finance became more specialized and demanded more educated and knowledgable employees. These employees in turn demanded higher pay for their skills. In general, in the US this is thought to be fair and just.

The banking crisis was a failure not only of regulation but of regulators. Over confidence in the free markets was largely to blame. However, one thing a majority of Americans do not realize is that banking/finance may be one of the last industries America dominates in and it is an important industry worldwide. Additionally, banking/finance is very easy to move to other countries. While it is necessary to regulate banking, we must keep in mind that over regulation will come with a steep price to the US. Including losing high paying jobs and higher interest rates on consumer and commercial banking.

Law makers and regulators must take these things into account also. If the US implements strict laws and other countries do not, we risk losing our leadership in the banking industry. It should not be the only consideration but is a big consideration.

Re: The Case for (Even More) Stimulus

Benjamin Daniels — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:35:08 -0000

Of course. Totally missed that.

Re: The Case for (Even More) Stimulus

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:47:28 -0000

FYI, This post was written by my colleague Matt Steinglass.

Re: Stimulus: A Shot in the Arm

Joe — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:37:20 -0000

In that chart, stimulus spending is clearly trailing improvements in the job situation.

Re: Should Democrats Lose the House?

PaulCurrier — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:47:04 -0000

What gets interesting is the notion that for the first time since 2006, Bills written by a GOP House of Representatives will head over to the Senate with a GOP control of say 51 to 49 or 55 to 45, for reconciliation and then off to Obama. We may see the real Republican face of Obama, where Barack will get to embrace the rich and powerful, trash the Democratic Party for good, and blame it all on the GOP! That may be his strategy to get elected in 2012? I wonder if Barack and Rahm will change party in voter registration as well?