Just before this slips down the grating; Brad DeLong waves the waggy finger of disapproval at anyone who slurs Milton Friedman's name by suggesting that the US PATRIOT Act is of a piece with the shmibertarian tendency to turn a blind eye to authoritarianism as long as it cuts the rate of capital gains tax.
One would imagine from this that Milton Friedman approved of the Un-Patriot Act--which he most definitely did not. Unlike Hayek, Friedman believed in individual liberty and autonomy first, and order and hierarchy second if at all.
tsk those liberals and their always poisoning the debate! Why can't they leave principled old Uncle Milton alone.
But hang on ... what did Friedman actually say about the US PATRIOT Act?
DA: In a time of war, how do we maintain our freedom?
MF: We don’t. We invariably reduce our freedom. But that doesn’t mean it’s a permanent reduction. As long as we really keep in mind what we’re doing, that we keep it temporary, we need not destroy our freedom.
DA: Are you concerned that some of the measures we’re taking now to fight the war, like the Patriot Act, may be more than just temporary?
MF: It’s not clear. The Patriot Act is a very complicated issue, and I’m not going to get involved in that. But I think that on the whole, this war is small enough relative to our economy that it is not going to be a serious impediment to our freedom. But the sooner we can get rid of it and out of it, the better.
DA: Do you agree with President Bush that the actions in Iraq were necessary as a part of our war on terrorism?
MF: I think you can argue either side of that. Where I do feel strongly, is that having gone into it, whether we should have or not, we must see it through.
DA: Even if it costs some of our freedoms?
MF: There’s no way to avoid a burden on your freedom. The costs themselves are a burden on your freedom. The restrictions that are necessary in order to get rid of the terrorists are a burden to your freedom. So there’s no way in the short run to avoid a restriction on your freedom. But if we’re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through
In other words, he was in fact for it, and if that bit about "the sooner we get rid of it, the better" fooled you, then I've got a
They're always hacks, Brad. Always. Yes even Milton Friedman. The more independent-minded ones will occasionally come up with a liberalish or fair-minded idea or two, but this is purely for display, not for ever doing anything about if to do so would run the risk of a higher rate of capital gains tax. The ideological core of Chicago-style libertarianism has two planks.
1. Vote Republican.
2. That's it.
Why are American liberals so damnably obsessed with extending intellectual charity to right wing hacks which is never reciprocated? It reaches parodic form in the case of those tiresome "centrists" who left wing American bloggers are always playing the Lucy-holds-the-football game with. Oh, but their politics are sooo centrist! They're practically 50% of the way between Republicans and Democrats! Yeah, specifically they're right-wing Democrats in non-election years and party line Republicans any time it might conceivably matter (note that here, two years after the White House ceremony at which Friedman apparently "spent most of his 90th birthday lunch telling Bush that his fiscal policy was a disaster", here he is signing a letter in support of more of the same).
I wouldn't mind, but it's clearly not intellectual honesty that makes American liberals act pretend that Milton Friedman wasn't a party line Republican hack (which he was; he was also an excellent economist, which is why he won the Nobel Prize for Economics, not the Nobel Prize for Making A Sincere and Productive Contribution To The National Political Debate, which he would not have won if there was one). If it was just pure scholarly decency that made Yank liberals so keen on recognising the good qualities even in their political opponents, then you'd expect that they would also be quick to recognise the good qualities, analytical insights and so on in prominent Communist intellectuals. And do they? Do they fuck. I won't link to the Paul Sweezy obituary, because I think everyone involved agrees that this wasn't Brad's finest hour, but it certainly wasn't atypical.
Of course the explanation's quite sensible. American liberals kiss up to Friedmanites and kick down on Reds because they're still, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, scared of being red-baited. One of the enduring reasons why I regard JK Galbraith as a hero is that practically alone among mainstream commentators of the era, he by and large refused to play this game.
Indeed. With a big dollop of Quite on top.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on the Peanuts bit? I understand the metaphor, just not what it's referring to.
ReplyDeletea nod in the direction of
ReplyDeletehttp://sadlyno.com/archives/7065.html
and a reference to the practice of the sensible liberals time and again trying to play nice with the right wing, and then time and again getting all surprised when they finally get shat on.
God, that Delong think on Sweezy is outrageous. Did he ever apologize?
ReplyDeleteI think DeLong's frequent apologies for Friedman and others has more to do with an unwillingness to criticize others in his own profession than to being a liberal.
ReplyDelete(Besides which, to me as an American liberal, Brad isn't all that liberal. IIRC too enamoured of his boss, Bill C.)
a) Thank you
ReplyDeleteb) what ejh said
c) I don't think it's mostly fear of red-baiting, I think it's also a question of incentive. Rightwingers have more power in America than Reds, so pretending that rightwingers have some redeeming value is a good career move. (This is partly what anonymous is saying.) If you get too shrill* you can get fired like Robert Scheer; when was the last time an opinion-writer lost a job for making nice to Republicans?
*Term of art meaning "Uncongenial to Republicans."
I think there's also to be borne in mind a sizeable degree of arrogance among US centrists with regards to leftists: it's much more rare to find one who will engage with the left, than one who basically views them as wreckers and fools and says as much in so many words.
ReplyDeleteFrom your lips.... I expect this'll get read by Delong and others, justification enough for free ice cream from you.
ReplyDeleteWith Delong with have two things:
1) economist defending indefensible assumptions
2) centrist who's made to feel guilty by those to their left.
Both are USA specials, though not limited. That these two flaws extend to Friedman illustrates the extent of the problem, but day -to-day, you see it everywhere.
You nailed it, Daniel. But where does the Tyler Cowen fan club fit in all of this?
ReplyDeleteTyler's actually a pretty good economist as long as a) you take his blog in small doses because it can get pretty unbearably cutesy in large measure and b) you don't have any illusions about what he's gonna do to you come election time.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Hasn't a lot of your time in blog land been spent having fairly reasonable debates, with some attempt at good faith and productive discussion, on weblogs who's proprieters who were quite a ways to the right and who's readership was the same? In particular McMegan herself? Do you regard that time you spent as now being fruitless and unworth the effort or did your opinions of these people shift significantly in the last few years. For all the clever snark in that SadlyNo post, I can at least recall one time where Matt Yglesias accused McMegan lieing. I don't think you've ever treated her so un gingerly.
ReplyDeleteWell, JK Galbraith (himself) debated Friedman (himself) - although I seem to remember that the television networks played some sorts of fun and games with the editing. In general, lots of these people will debate things in a reasonably sensible and good-faith manner, while they're actually arguing with you, but one needs to be eyes open about the likelihood of this leading to any substantial change in what they actually do. Personally speaking, I have never had any illusions about my real aims in Internet arguments - to work out my narcissistic personality issues.
ReplyDeleteAren't we nearly always debating for the benefit of the spectators, rather than because we expect to change the adversary's mind?
ReplyDelete"Why are American liberals so damnably obsessed with extending intellectual charity to right wing hacks which is never reciprocated?"
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have to have an intelligent thought for us to give you credit.
zing!
ReplyDeleteLeftoids may not all be assholes but they are all liars. Indeed, that is one of the marks of the beast upon them. And yes, I do know that the abiding sin of the right is greed. So here's a little quote for you, liar.
ReplyDeleteAn Open Letter to Bill Bennett
by Milton Friedman, April 1990
In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.
You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.
Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.
Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.
pop quiz hotshot, who did Friedman endorse in 1992 - was it Clinton ("smoked but didn't inhale") or Dole (zero tolerance)? Which President launched the "War on Drugs" (Nixon) and did Friedman endorse him (yes). In other words, this data point fits my theory entirely - Friedman had these opinions for show, not for purposes of serious politics. Which would mean that it is you who are the liar, and a dickhead to boot.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you are pretending that it is wrong to support someone that you have disagreements with. None of us 100% agree with any of the politicians we support (unless you happen to get very lucky).
ReplyDeleteMF thinks Republicans make better president's than Dems. He thinks he agrees with them more and on issues he considers more important.
But then you will say, he isn't choosing a lesser of two evils. He is supporting specific policies. But THEN, you will cite some evidence pretending it says something other than it says.
MF has always supported:
1. Low taxes and low spending.
2. In the absence of that, low taxes.
Thus, it is quite reasonable to chastise Bush for being 1 and not 2 and support Bush for being 2 and not high tax, high spend as he sees Kerry.
Now invariably, you will cite some evidence that MF believes 1 and supports someone doing 2 and pretend he is supporting someone he doesn't agree with.
who did Friedman endorse in 1992 - was it Clinton ("smoked but didn't inhale") or Dole (zero tolerance)
ReplyDeleteHe definitely didn't support Dole in 1992. hee hee. Seriously, I don't think Clinton was much better from a war on drugs standpoint than the alternatives.
But you know, this is all very hairsplitting, since the main post is about an instance where MF supported a massive infringement of freedom as such (two, counting the continuing war in Iraq) directly in line with GOP dogma. That's not the lesser of two evils.
I'm also curious how low taxes and high spending fits with the stated objectives of the Chicago school -- maybe it does say that there's something great about running massive deficits, but that's not something I'd heard before.
Would it assist this discussion to observe that Milton wasn't entirely unhappy with the overthrow of Salvador Allende by a military government which suspended quite a lot of elementary freedoms? (Like for instance the right to finish your journey before being required to leave the helicopter.)
ReplyDelete"I'm also curious how low taxes and high spending fits with the stated objectives of the Chicago school -- maybe it does say that there's something great about running massive deficits, but that's not something I'd heard before."
ReplyDeleteMF has always thought that a tax cut was good even if there wasn't a resulting spending cut, because the resulting deficit (and debt)wouldn't be able to go on forever. When that happens a large spending cut or tax increase would have to happen, and a large tax increase would be politically difficult.
Here is what MF says in "What Every American Wants" which oddly, DD thinks supports his position, when it really just confirms what MF has always said. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002933)
"I have long said, "I never met a tax cut I didn't like"--though I would go on to say that I like some better than others. The reason for my flat, unhedged statement is neither the Keynesian attribution of an economic stimulus to a tax cut, which I believe is generally wrong, nor the supply-side attribution of favorable incentive effects to a tax cut, which I believe is generally correct. It is, rather, the effect of tax cuts on government spending."
"Under those circumstances, how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective.
Many discussions of the economic effect of tax cuts and deficits implicitly assume that government spending is predetermined and independent of whether there is a tax cut or a deficit. In that world, deficits are produced entirely by a shortage of tax receipts. Raising taxes can eliminate the deficit without affecting spending. As I see the world, the situation is very different. What is predetermined is not spending but the politically tolerable deficit. Raise taxes by enough to eliminate the existing deficit and spending will go up to restore the tolerable deficit. Tax cuts may initially raise the deficit above the politically tolerable deficit, but their longer-term effect will be to restrain spending."
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with MF's position. I disagree with it, which is why even though I respect MF I didn't support GB. Interestingly, ejh points out that MF has long put a different weighting on economic rights vs. political rights than most people. He has long supported heavy handed dictators that allowed markets over communism with no economic rights but perhaps more political rights. He's long believed that economic rights lead to political rights, but not necessarily vice versa. If you know MF's career, it's just not that surprising that he could disagree with the patriot act, but not disagree with it enough to support a big spending, high tax alternative.
What's really happening is DD just disagrees with him. But why not just disagree and make a convincing argument that MF is wrong. Why do you have to say MF is a hack or immoral or a liar? Is it that someone who disagrees with DD must be a bad person? Someone on the right must be a bad person? Stylistically, it is also a very bad choice, because it makes DD's arguments seem very weak. When a character attack is used in place of a substantive argument, it seems like it must be because the substantive argument is weak.
Would it assist this discussion to observe that Milton wasn't entirely unhappy with the overthrow of Salvador Allende by a military government which suspended quite a lot of elementary freedoms?
ReplyDeleteNot especially. "Not entirely unhappy", is a pretty flimsy standard for imposing a red mark on someone's moral record. In the past 60 years of history of avowedly leftist governments and regimes asserting themselves in parts of Asia, Latin America and the Soviet Bloc, suspending many elementary freedoms in the process in more than a few of those cases. Describing the reactions of individual reds in the Western countries as "not entirely unhappy" with such events would if anything be conservative.
Hmmm, that's not actually any sort of answer, is it? Or it seems to be an answer about people wholly different to the one about whom I asked...
ReplyDeleteIf you know MF's career, it's just not that surprising that he could disagree with the patriot act
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what he did. He supported the Patriot Act; not just the candidate who proposed the Act, but the Act itself. Again, how is this compatible with his stated libertarianism?
drr has to be a Yank. drr, "not entirely unhappy with" is Brit understatement, understatement being something Cousin Jonathans, especially the more right-wing ones, often struggle with.
ReplyDeleteTranslate it into "was a full-blooded hang-em-high rooter for".
Well yes, except that had I wanted to say that I would have said it. Which is not to say understatemet wasn't involved.
ReplyDelete"If you know MF's career, it's just not that surprising that he could disagree with the patriot act"
ReplyDelete"But that's not what he did. He supported the Patriot Act; not just the candidate who proposed the Act, but the Act itself. Again, how is this compatible with his stated libertarianism?"
"DA: Are you concerned that some of the measures we’re taking now to fight the war, like the Patriot Act, may be more than just temporary?
MF: It’s not clear. The Patriot Act is a very complicated issue, and I’m not going to get involved in that. But I think that on the whole, this war is small enough relative to our economy that it is not going to be a serious impediment to our freedom. But the sooner we can get rid of it and out of it, the better."
I mean, "it's not clear. I'm not going to get into that." That isn't support, at most it is avoidance. And if being a hack is simply not emphasizing your disagreements, then many more people qualify as hacks. Paul Krugman, for instance, wrote a blog post complimenting sicko. He acknowledges that it isn't scholarly or realistic, but he says basically the heart is in the right place (I didn't look it up, feel free to find the correct euphemism he uses and correct me). Is he a hack because he didn't emphasize his differences with Moore? In fact, he is an interesting example. He was sort of a centrist Dem. and then the political spectrum moved drastically. If it moves back, he will presumably be arguing against bad policies coming out of the far left, just like he was 10-15 years ago. I mean he didn't forget economics. I'm sure there are lots of policies he cringes at, but doesn't bring up. For instance, google "Krugman minimum wage" and you may be surprised what comes up.
I mean, I think we all do this. PK keeps pointing out mildly stupid things Barack Obama says, but I think Barack Obama is by far the smartest and most talented candidate. I think he'd make good trade-offs, and I think I'd agree with most of his policies. So, yeah social security isn't in "crisis," but then again I wouldn't mind moving back the retirement age and removing the cap on payroll. Sure, maybe PK has a point that it isn't worth political capital, but then again he isn't governing yet. I think he'll make the right tradeoffs when he needs to (though I probably mind mild changes to SS much less than PK).
People are always pointing out to me when PK says things I disagree with (all of the libertarian bloggers for instance), but I don't go around emphasizing our differences. He is a good thinker and a great writer. He writes about economics better than anyone else I've ever read. I don't go around emphasizing my disagreements, because I think people should read him even if they disagree with him. [MF is a good writer, but a great speaker. PK writes like he's 10 feet tall and speaks like he's 5'6". MF is witting, focused and charming. Anyone interested in economics should find the free to choose internet videos and scroll to the end of each video where MF answers arguments from all sides (against real people). I don't think you could come away from an honest review of his work without thinking that he genuinely believes a tiny government would be best for the least fortunate in society. I can imagine people not agreeing, but I just can't imagine them thinking he's being dishonest.]
If understating disagreement is tantamount to being a hack, I just think we are all indictable.
But from now on can anyone for the rest of this thread, actually quote the person they are calling a hack honestly? I mean, if changing "I'm not going to get into that" to "He supported the ACT, not just the CANDIDATE" is really necessary, for to make your point, it seems you realize you don't have a decent case. I mean, if you had a decent case you would have used MF's words and not felt the need to strengthen them so much, right?
DD does the same thing throughout his post. Read it critically looking at all the subtle words he has to change. All the times he has to confound the petition and the press statement (if you really want to have fun, read what he does in the marginalrevolution comments). And ask yourself, if he isn't trying to fudge a weak argument. But then again, maybe you'll apologize for him, understate your differences from him, because you think he is a good blogger.
But from now on can anyone for the rest of this thread, actually quote the person they are calling a hack honestly?
ReplyDeleteExcellent. We can begin with this:
DA: In a time of war, how do we maintain our freedom?
MF: We don’t. We invariably reduce our freedom.
That's support for reduction of freedom. "It's not clear" is a response to the question of whether freedom will ever be unreduced. So it sounds like MF is supportive of reducing freedom, even when he's not sure that we'll ever get that freedom back. He also argues for prolonging the war (and consequently the reduction of freedom): "if we’re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through."
There might be an explanation for this other than "Friedman is furiously trying to rationalize Bush's anti-libertarian acts," but I don't see it.
And, you know, it's a bit rich for you to get on your high horse about selective quotation when your opening bid was that Friedman supported Bush but opposed the Patriot Act, when (even on your reading) he doesn't express any opposition to the Patriot Act in the quote under discussion, and you haven't cited any instance of his opposing the Patriot Act.
BTW, on both this and the deficit issue it seems to me that the most charitable reading of MF is that he's incredibly naive about politics in a way that justifies support for anti-libertarian Republican policies on the basis of some political benefit mañana. He suggests that at the end of the war we'll get our freedom back, though there's no evidence for that. And he (as you explain) thinks that it's good to cut taxes without cutting spending because eventually it'll lead to spending cuts, although again there's no evidence for that. This sort of convenient naivete is pretty much functionally indistinguishable from Republican hackery.
Is he a hack
ReplyDeleteKrugman? In the sense of a party-line Democrat who often distorts his analysis for that purpose? God yes.
It is a pretty consistent theme of that post that I think it is possible for someone to be a good economist, an excellent writer, a fine human being, and simultaneously a party-line hack who could do us all a favour by giving up on the party line. The reference to Paul Sweezy (who was a GE, EW, FHB and actual Line-from-Moscow-Stalinist party hack) was not ornamental. I'm just arguing for fair shakes for all sorts of hacks, rather than this asymmetric charitable pretence that "free-market" hacks ain't hacks.
Krugman may be a party-line hack, but I really doubt that he'd be doing us a favor by giving up the line.
ReplyDelete(Incidentally what is the argument for moving back the retirement age if Social Security isn't in crisis? I get lifting the cap, it makes the tax code more progressive, but AFAICT raising the retirement age just makes life less pleasant for a bunch of people between age 62 and 70.)
I am quite happy to engage in an explication of what MF actually said. That is certainly much more interesting that just debunking misstatements (DD's not yours, I believe you are trying to interpret him fairly).
ReplyDelete"MF: We don�t. We invariably reduce our freedom. But that doesn�t mean it�s a permanent reduction. As long as we really keep in mind what we�re doing, that we keep it temporary, we need not destroy our freedom."
I read this differently than you. I think it is beneficial to see it with:
DA: Even if it costs some of our freedoms?
MF: There�s no way to avoid a burden on your freedom. The costs themselves are a burden on your freedom. The restrictions that are necessary in order to get rid of the terrorists are a burden to your freedom. So there�s no way in the short run to avoid a restriction on your freedom. But if we�re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through."
I think you can split this up as:
1. War costs freedoms.
2. You should engage in war when the benefits (to freedom) outweigh the costs.
I think part 1 is why he says "invariably costs freedom" "the costs themselves are a burden on freedom" -> remember that the war must be financed by taxes which is an important hindrance to freedom "the restrictions necessary to get rid of terrorists are a hindrance to freedom" -> this is an area I have a little less knowledge of Friedman. I do not know much about how he weights civil freedoms. To me, he is saying: the restrictions necessary to get rid of terrorists is bad, but it is justifiable in order to get rid of terrorists. Just as he is also saying, the restrictions on freedom necessary to fight a war are justified. I don't know if I need to prove MF is not against war. He has always held that military defence and if necessary war, is part of government's duty. I feel certain I have seen him support US entering WWII for instance. If it is in dispute that MF has at times supported wars, I will try to find citations.
So, I think that leads directly to part two, where he says, "But if we�re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through" and also a bit earlier, "I think you can argue either side of that. Where I do feel strongly, is that having gone into it, whether we should have or not, we must see it through."
So he is saying, Iraq may have been a mistake, but now that we're in having taken saddam from power and destabilized it. We have to stay. I am sure you, as I have, know the argument very well. I personally don't agree with it, but I don't think the people that make this argument are necessarily naive political hacks. I think they are wrong. I see no reason to think MF does not believe it. Many smart people in 2004 agreed with him. Many have changed their mind sense, perhaps, he would have been one. I don't know. But I do think their is a large middle ground between liar and naif on the issue.
" And he (as you explain) thinks that it's good to cut taxes without cutting spending because eventually it'll lead to spending cuts, although again there's no evidence for that. "
Well, this isn't just politically convenient, it's just something he's always thought. If you'd like to hear it from MF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNrMQazZHDc) this interview with Charlie Rose provides some evidence. They start talking about the issue around 15:15. The famous quote "I am in favor of any tax cut at any time for any reason" exemplifies the view. MF explains it in "What every American wants." I unlike MF do not support this. But his argument isn't crazy. I just realized I posted parts of it above, so I won't remake the argument for him. If you think it is naieve and MF is dumb, that's your opinion. But it is totally different than hackery. He's not lying. He believes this.
"I get lifting the cap, it makes the tax code more progressive, but AFAICT raising the retirement age just makes life less pleasant for a bunch of people between age 62 and 70.)"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, we are getting older and healthier. People at 65 are different than people of 65 10 years ago. People at 65 15 years from now will be healthier still. I think eventually SS should recognize this. Since I think it is politically infeasible, for any generation to say, "hey we'll put off retiring for 5 more years." I think it makes since for some generation to precommit to it. So I would like to see moving retirement back gradually back 5 years starting 15 years from now.
May I ask, are you a hack? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally what is the argument for moving back the retirement age if Social Security isn't in crisis?
ReplyDeletespurious concept of "intergenerational equity". Something like what Charlie says, but when you think about it, it's crazy. There's a built in transfer of leisure from the current generation to future generations if we use productivity improvements to keep the retirement age the same as life expectancy at retirement increases, but when you think about it, this is the only way the distribution can go; we cannot redistribute to past generations because they are dead.
In my opinion, we are getting older and healthier.... I think eventually SS should recognize this.
ReplyDeleteBut this seems to me to be a non sequitur. Why should SS "recognize" this if we can afford to pay SS to 62- or 65-year-olds? I don't see any reason why "65-year-olds are healthier" means "we should refuse to pay pensions to 65-year-olds even though we can afford to."
As for Friedman , I can't load that video now (and interviews from 2005 don't establish that he didn't flip-flop when Bush came to power), but other people seem to have drawn the lesson from Friedman that tax cuts without spending cuts are no good. Perhaps this is a misreading of what Friedman said all along. I don't care much, because it doesn't matter to me whether he supported restraints on civil liberties because of partisanship or because he genuinely didn't count civil liberties as "freedom." It seems to me that there isn't any important difference between "Friedman was a Republican hack" and "Friedman held a deeply principled position which just happened to lead him to support the Republicans down the line, even when they showed their utter indifference to restraining government spending." At least, I don't see any more reason why the latter deserves intellectual charity, which is the issue at hand.
(And, I think you've provided a fair reading of Friedman on the war issue, but his position seems transparently nonsensical. Many people thought that once we were in Iraq we had to stay, but this just doesn't make any sense within the libertarian framework that Friedman is adopting, which seems to concede "Terrorists! Booga Booga!" as sufficient grounds for indefinite curtailment of freedom.)
drr has to be a Yank. drr, "not entirely unhappy with" is Brit understatement, understatement being something Cousin Jonathans, especially the more right-wing ones, often struggle with.
ReplyDeleteTranslate it into "was a full-blooded hang-em-high rooter for".
You're right, I am American, and I understood what "not entirely unhappy with" was supposed to mean. I didn't know this was a uniquely British form of understatement but if you want to give them credit I won't try and stop you. Either way, you'll be relieved to know that Americans, even the right-wing ones, get the concept of "understatement", at least at this level, and have been known to use it occasionally themselves.
Regardless, however literally you interpret "not entirely unhappy with", running the gambit from "That's unfortunate, but..." to "Fucking Awesome!" each can characterize the reaction of at least some bloc of the proper Left in the West to said developments in Asia, Latin America, and the Soviet Bloc. Either way, "was a full-blooded hang-em-high rooter for" isn't a particularly accurate description of Milton Friedman's reaction to Chile, the coup in 73 or Pinochet. And I say this as someone who neither thinks Friedman was all that great an economist, nor that he had some libertarian integrity that deserves begrudging respect from decent liberals. Friedman supported the war, claiming opposition only when it was no longer fashionable (thanks to the balking of his Wife, who he often interviewed with jointly).
P.S. Cousin Jonathans? Really? What is this 1820? We've already established that the British are a dynamic and creative people, just look what they've done with understatement. Isn't there another uniquely British name, nickname or derogatory reference for American, not widely used internationally, but still less stupid sounding than a Cousin Jonathan?
Just for rhetorical purposes, imagine the retirement age is 65, but people are living until 200 quite healthily, so a 100 year old is as able as a 40 year old today.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the retirement age was still 65? It is obvious what the costs of the program are. First, we have a bunch of young people facing distortionary labor taxes to transfer to old people who aren't working (or if they are are losing something like 25% of their wage over a certain point). I suppose we could fix the second part pretty easily, but what about the first part. Do we want a distortionary transfer?
Since I never hear people arguing to move the retirement age up to 40, it seems most people think it is obvious SS security has a cost. So why are we willing to bear this cost?
My reason:
SS is a social insurance program. It would make us sad if people got old and were poor.
Why not just support old people who end up without savings? Well, then we'd be incentivizing people to end up without savings. So instead, we just force everybody to save.
Why not pay out benefits to people who are 50? Let's say we raise the payroll tax on 18 year olds, so they can retire when they are 50 with comparable benefits. Would we want to? No the cost of the taxes would outweigh the benefit of the transfer.
Is this controversial?
What is this notion of "we can afford to" we could raise taxes and pay benefits to 64 year olds, it doesn't mean we should?
So instead, we just force everybody to save.
ReplyDeleteWho are these people who can "afford to save"? I left college twenty years ago and I'm broke. Those savings I had went on putting myself through a college course, since we don't want to pay for that socially any more than we want to pay for pensions, apparently. Indeed, paying off undergraduate debt is likely to be a major factor in depriving people of the ability to actually save in the first place.
-ejh
ReplyDeleteI think you hit on something important. It is hard to save income. There is always something that it could be spent on. But you have been paying up to 15% of your income (if you've been working) in payroll taxes. It is a bit convoluted, since your money is being transfered to the current old and not sitting waiting for you. But in some real sense you've been accruing savings. That is to say, even people that wish to privatize recognize that you have accrued some benefits, some promises the US will fulfill.
Maybe if you had that income you wouldn't be able to "afford to save" it. I think that is an important part of SS.
even people that wish to privatize recognize that you have accrued some benefits, some promises the US will fulfill.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, in my case or ejh's.
"I don't think so, in my case or ejh's."
ReplyDeleteThat seems pretty indefensible. Every privatization plan ever offered up has recognized benefits under current law. I went on Cato to see what they were saying and they were talking about 20% benefit cuts compared to US law. I didn't spend enought time to figure out what that actually meant (an average 20% cut doesn't tell you much about what happens to different earners), but it is obvious that people have some benefits owed.
From a political standpoint it doesn't make any sense either, does it? I mean ejh sounds like he is in his 40s, are people in there 40s and lower just going to vote away their benefits? Who's going to lead that charge, current retirees? What do they care about long term fiscal imbalances? Young laborers? They don't vote. Even if they did, they just aren't a big enough demographic. No to mention a good many wouldn't want to strip their parents of SS benefits.
Can someone articulate this position for me in a way that makes sense? Or is their a reason the response was only 9 words with no justification.
The reason being that they're both British?
ReplyDelete