Have your political views changed over time?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Right-wing extremists haven't fared much better than left-wing extremists; there's no need to invoke socialism here. What I'd advocate is a regulated market, though not an economy subject to strict top-down control. There's a need for competition and flexibility where too much leveling removes incentive and too much control doesn't allow creativity to discover what is possible. On the other hand, I take issue with "free market" advocates when they act as though the market is an independent force which acts for its own good. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' wasn't meant to indicate the presence of an all-knowing market deity. Some on the right fail to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "free" market in the sense that the market is inherently just another social construct, shaped by the rules created to govern it and with no inherent morality.

To wit, while a capitalist market seems to result in inequality as surely as it does inflation (or deflation to be precise, but not steady prices) there is a need to prevent runaway inequality just as there is a need to guard against runaway inflation. Too much inequality is as destructive as too little is limiting. Gone completely unchecked, it has in the past become a problem the guillotine was invoked to solve. Vive la France! Similarly, there is a need to regulate the market and players involved in it in other ways. Firms as they are currently designed (legally) are responsible only to their own bottom line, so they can't be trusted to always act in the best interests of society. One of the worst words too few people know is 'externality;' big businesses thrive on externalizing as much cost as possible. There's an economic case for forcing firms to pay for the costs they impose on society.

To some Americans in the Republican party, statements of this kind would brand me as a "socialist."

[sunnyside]

No, I wasn't referring to BattleTech. He was a prime mover, then leader, of the revolutionary government that was wedged in between Tsarist Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution. Alexander Kerensky

Sounds like he never really had control of anything. Just a brief period where he might have sort of control some areas.

Right-wing extremists haven't fared much better than left-wing extremists;

I'm curious what "right wing extremists" you are refferring to here in terms of historical governments/countries. Although I suppose that term is rather overloaded.

Some on the right fail to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "free" market in the sense that the market is inherently just another social construct, shaped by the rules created to govern it and with no inherent morality.

I don't know that they'd argue that the "free market" or the "invisible hand" have an inherent morality. Well, except in a rather atheistic libertarian sense where the freedom of a free market pretty much is their operating touchstone of morality. But that's Libertarians not Conservatives or Republicans.

To some Americans in the Republican party, statements of this kind would brand me as a "socialist."

I think the issue here is that in statements like yours specific points aren't indicated. There is never some indicated tax rate or somesuch that is indicated as enough, nor how one would determine that perhaps one had gone too far. There is just a clamor for more. Thus labels like "socialist" get thrown around. It isn't that specific advocated law is actually socialist, the accusation is that the people pushing for it are socialists, and that if you pass this law you'll have given ground and they'll just start pushing for the next.

This sort of rhetoric is used in both directions, often alongside straw men like the "market diety" you mentioned.

Although since conservatism in the US is largely defined by Ronald Reagan there are at least some specifics to point to.

Actually I think much of my swing voting is due to the current laws shifting too far, in my opinion, one way or the other at the point an election comes up.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Ah, I usually don't get dragged into these debates. Well, there are some fair points indicated for clarification. I suppose I spoke in very abstract and general manner there. It was a stab at defending an overall philosophy but as always the devil is in the details. On to rebuttals!

Right-wing extremists haven't fared much better than left-wing extremists;

I'm curious what "right wing extremists" you are refferring to here in terms of historical governments/countries. Although I suppose that term is rather overloaded.

Yes, the term "extremist" should carry an implication that a certain position is hopelessly impractical. As has been attributed to Aristotelian thought, moderation should always be sought. Alas, most mere mortals aren't great at achieving balance.

If we take a command economy as the logical extreme of leftist economic thought (a problematic vision for reasons I briefly touched on in the quoted message) then the opposite might be taken as a highly unequal society. The "gilded age" in America in the late 19th and early 20th Century was ended with peaceful political reform initiated by Ted Roosevelt and greatly expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt. On the other hand, extreme inequality in France wasn't resolved in a way anyone could reasonably describe as "peaceful," as I also mentioned above.

Some on the right fail to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "free" market in the sense that the market is inherently just another social construct, shaped by the rules created to govern it and with no inherent morality.

I don't know that they'd argue that the "free market" or the "invisible hand" have an inherent morality. Well, except in a rather atheistic libertarian sense where the freedom of a free market pretty much is their operating touchstone of morality. But that's Libertarians not Conservatives or Republicans.

As to morality, it's fair to say that's an ambiguous idea. In general the Conservative position on economic policy prefers minimal regulation and taxation (or "interference" in Reagan-esque rhetoric). I had taken it as an implication of a laissez-faire approach wherein letting the market be with minimal regulation relies on a certain degree of faith that market players will act in an ethical manner. While there are some incentives for market players not to cheat, I don't put enough faith in them not to back them up with governmental power.

To some Americans in the Republican party, statements of this kind would brand me as a "socialist."

I think the issue here is that in statements like yours specific points aren't indicated. There is never some indicated tax rate or somesuch that is indicated as enough, nor how one would determine that perhaps one had gone too far. There is just a clamor for more. Thus labels like "socialist" get thrown around. It isn't that specific advocated law is actually socialist, the accusation is that the people pushing for it are socialists, and that if you pass this law you'll have given ground and they'll just start pushing for the next.

This sort of rhetoric is used in both directions, often alongside straw men like the "market diety" you mentioned.

Although since conservatism in the US is largely defined by Ronald Reagan there are at least some specifics to point to.

Actually I think much of my swing voting is due to the current laws shifting too far, in my opinion, one way or the other at the point an election comes up.

Well it's quite fair to suggest the specifics of a given policy are up for debate (e.g., what specific tax rates). I might not have exact policy prescriptions in mind but neither would my Conservative doppelganger. As you implied, both sides of the aisle view the opposite with a great deal of suspicion and often outright hostility. It's a major problem that no real debate (or "conversation" as some talking heads like to say) is being held because of the mutual distrust. Whatever the roots of the high and growing polarization in American politics the result is that the two parties are continuously talking past each other. The common philosophical ground required for an honest negotiation process has disappeared.

As I stated above, my goal in the previous post was to defend a philosophical view that supports an active governmental role in regulating the market. If you say a Conservative fears that liberals won't stop their demands for "more, more, more" I'll admit to a fear in the back of my mind that conservatives won't ever stop their demands to cut taxes, cut welfare, and deregulate the market.

[sunnyside]

As you implied, both sides of the aisle view the opposite with a great deal of suspicion and often outright hostility. It's a major problem that no real debate (or "conversation" as some talking heads like to say) is being held because of the mutual distrust.

I'd like to touch on this first because I think it's more significant than many people realize. In particular I see that a lot on the gun issue. There are a number of policies like background checks and registries that are only opposed because of fear of how such things could be used. So long as gun transfers are completely off the grid the government won't know where to go knocking or what they haven't found when they try and ban guns. Though things like that apply to most attempts at firearm legislation.

Not without reason mind you. I like the idea of Sheriffs being given the ability to make decisions on concealed carry permits, but that was abused in quite a few states to effectively create a total ban (hence the push for "shall issue" policies). Unfortunate.

As I stated above, my goal in the previous post was to defend a philosophical view that supports an active governmental role in regulating the market. If you say a Conservative fears that liberals won't stop their demands for "more, more, more" I'll admit to a fear in the back of my mind that conservatives won't ever stop their demands to cut taxes, cut welfare, and deregulate the market.

Well, Libertarians often vote and support conservative/republican candidates. But they aren't the same thing. It's just that Democrats want to "oppress" them fiscally AND socially, whereas Republicans only want to "oppress" them on the social side (and the Republicans don't really pose a realistic threat on many of those fronts anymore). Conservatives are not anarcho-capitalists.

There are of course different types of conservatives of course. But for most policies they can point to a period in US history that they think had it right and something from there is what they're trying to "conserve" or return to (typically Reagan these days but you do have the neocons and paleoconservatives). So their aims are typically bounded.

If we take a command economy as the logical extreme of leftist economic thought (a problematic vision for reasons I briefly touched on in the quoted message) then the opposite might be taken as a highly unequal society. The "gilded age" in America in the late 19th and early 20th Century was ended with peaceful political reform initiated by Ted Roosevelt and greatly expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

There is some psychology in there that I think could use more study. Much of capitalist economic through is based on logic like, if you could either make a deal where you get $200 but someone else gets $20,000 or you could not take it and you both get nothing, than everyone will take the deal. However I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

There is some psychology in there that I think could use more study. Much of capitalist economic through is based on logic like, if you could either make a deal where you get $200 but someone else gets $20,000 or you could not take it and you both get nothing, than everyone will take the deal. However I don't think that's necessarily the case.

It's often not the case, but an argument for limiting inequality doesn't need to be limited to the extent to which it offends many people's innate sense of fairness. What has been the major drag on the recovery from the Great Recession? There's good evidence to suggest debt has a lot to do with it: even if not pushed underwater in the crash many households had accumulated a lot of debt in the prior decade or so. The savings rate had been very low before the crash but since then there's been a surge in desired savings, greatly depressing consumer spending and in turn, business investment. It's well known that many major corporations are sitting on enormous profits lately, but it makes sense for them to limit investment as long as they see limited demand. There's no point in wasting investment dollars on capacity that isn't needed. The result of all this is a stagnant economy operating at well below capacity.

Of course (like any single paragraph) that story is a gross oversimplification, but it holds a lot of truth. Besides suggesting that more should have been done to forgive debt early in the recovery period, what can be made of it? Many Republican voters* and politicians like to say that people shouldn't have spent beyond their means in the first place. Well the economy isn't a morality tale, and things aren't so cut and dried anyway. It's not easy to tell people they just can't live the way they expect to. What made this happen beyond some social factors (keeping up with the Joneses as they say)? In fact, you could say that due to stagnant wages for the middle class over the last several decades (since... drumroll please... Reagan!) many supposedly middle class people couldn't afford the supposed middle-class lifestyle without borrowing. While there was plenty of money made at the top, it didn't trickle down.

Another favorite catch-phrase on the right is that the economic pie should be expanded, not redistributed. It's another oversimplification, but misses the point. The pie had expanded in the previous decades, but not equitably. The details vary based on how one crunches the data, but it can be observed that many slices didn't keep pace with the expansion of the whole pie. This idea is a false dichotomy: economic well being isn't a matter of growth or fairness, it's a matter of fair growth if you will.

In the spirit of this discussion what I'd most like to point out here is that the purportedly incompatible views of those across the spectrum are often complimentary, even if the links aren't always obvious. Referencing the first two snips of my post you quoted, there are quite a few examples in which the different views offer a glimpse at one facet of the whole issue but people make the mistake of putting up walls between 'leftist' and 'right-wing' interpretations. Of course I'm not immune either: I'm no centrist and often struggle not to dismiss the views of the right. Perhaps more voters need to make some similar introspection.

* We are at odds a bit when it comes to usage of the term "conservative." Maybe the libertarian perspective gets lost in the shuffle in the reporting on the never-ending rhetorical war between democrats and republicans. On the other hand, I'm an admitted loner with little first-hand experience comparing thoughts with my neighbors. The internet doesn't entirely represent the way people interact offline!

[sunnyside]

We are at odds a bit when it comes to usage of the term "conservative." Maybe the libertarian perspective gets lost in the shuffle in the reporting on the never-ending rhetorical war between democrats and republicans. On the other hand, I'm an admitted loner with little first-hand experience comparing thoughts with my neighbors. The internet doesn't entirely represent the way people interact offline!

Well, since we have a two party system both parties have to pitch big tents. So besides both parties continually evolving, they both have a bunch of members that probably don't even fit within the definitions of "conservative" or "liberal". And even with their plotforms being made of vague platitudes, most members probably don't agree with everything. You generally have to apply a more specific label liber Paleoconservative or Neoconservative to pin something down.

I don't know if I help, as again I'm a swing voting moderate. I'm representing the conservatives because you're all a bunch of hippies.

That said, it seems wrong to use a term like conservative if they aren't trying to "conserve" anything and are instead pushing for something entirely outside the bounds of their countries history.

What made this happen beyond some social factors (keeping up with the Joneses as they say)? In fact, you could say that due to stagnant wages for the middle class over the last several decades (since... drumroll please... Reagan!) many supposedly middle class people couldn't afford the supposed middle-class lifestyle without borrowing. While there was plenty of money made at the top, it didn't trickle down.

Another favorite catch-phrase on the right is that the economic pie should be expanded, not redistributed. It's another oversimplification, but misses the point. The pie had expanded in the previous decades, but not equitably. The details vary based on how one crunches the data, but it can be observed that many slices didn't keep pace with the expansion of the whole pie. This idea is a false dichotomy: economic well being isn't a matter of growth or fairness, it's a matter of fair growth if you will.

We had a thread a while back on that. What I'd found there was that what was reported is always family income, and the growing inequality was pretty much entirely due to our changing family structure.

i.e. start with six people, all with perfectly equal income.

One couple gets married (doubling household income), one couple stays separate (no change), one couple has a kid and you've got one paying child support to the other who is no longer working (both lower)

So now you have a lot of inequality.

This is compounded by the tendency of people to marry others in their socioeconomic strata. So while if the doctors married the burger flippers you could have equality, what you tend to get is the doctors marrying each other and the same for the flippers, and the inequality grows.

To add some levity, a relevant webcomic I read today:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3531#comic

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Forgive a late reply, but life happens.

That explanation for inequality isn't credible because it doesn't fit the shape of the curve. What you're describing fits a very "broad" form of inequality (which wouldn't score highly on a statistical scale like the GIni index, making it a weak form to boot). What we have isn't broad at all, in fact the tag line "1 percent" is still too broad to capture it. It's the explosive growth of a very small group of extraordinarily wealthy individuals which have left the rest of us completely behind.

Any broad answer, like yours, or the education trope (the stratification between those of different levels of educational attainment) can be dismissed since they don't explain the shape of the curve. Appeals to the effects of globalization and international trade miss the point that inequity is far more pronounced here than in other advanced nations.

[sunnyside]

What we have isn't broad at all, in fact the tag line "1 percent" is still too broad to capture it. It's the explosive growth of a very small group of extraordinarily wealthy individuals which have left the rest of us completely behind.

I'll start on a point of agreement. Especially since it seems to be too overlooked by both sides when they argue about the 1%. When you divide up the 1% you find it's really the top .01% (or perhaps even a smaller chunk than that) which is growing and that's pulling up the number for the 1% when they're considered together. I doubt that is marriage related. And it has been reaching higher levels. Not beyond what we've seen in the past, but higher than we've seen in our lifetimes.

That said, I'd done a back of the envelope calculation on how much people would gain if you increased the tax rate on the top .01% to 100% and then took that money and wrote everyone an equal check. Now they're making eight figures, but there are few of them and they are already somewhat taxed. (so it was average income of ~30 million for top .01% of households, divided by 10,000 because we're talking about the top .01%, divided by 2 for existing taxes, divide by 3 for average household size) and you get 500 bucks (although I think that .01% figure ignores people not filing income taxes to be recorded as well as various undocumented individuals, if they get a check too the value drops). Now, an extra 500 bucks a year would be nice, but you don't have to cause much damage to the system before you're out a lot more than that.

The real issue here is how much heartburn people have when they see that mansion on the hill and know they can't have it.

That explanation for inequality isn't credible because it doesn't fit the shape of the curve. What you're describing fits a very "broad" form of inequality (which wouldn't score highly on a statistical scale like the GIni index, making it a weak form to boot).

Um, the Gini is an integral and highly impacted by "broad" inequality. The family thing above applies to the divergence you sometimes see when people look at the dispersion of income of, say, the different quintiles.

inequity is far more pronounced here than in other advanced nations.

I haven't looked into it overmuch, but that could be true (they could also be using different numbers, i.e. earners instead of households). And in any case the family thing just means inequality has generally only increased in the US because of that in the post 60s timeframe.

However other countries might have done stuff that drove it lower.


EDIT: It occured to me that the above income includes both wages for being a superstar in the boardroom or box office, the income from "owning the means of production" must be lower. So I poked around to find out how the income from the top .01% is divided up an also what the percentages were for average growth of investments vs inflation. So it looks like if you went full socialist on the .01% and grabbed all their businesses, stock portfolios, etc and had the government distribute the inflation adjusted capital gains/dividends from them and send out equal checks than each person would only get about $125 a year.

Of course a lot of businesses are smaller than that and lots of people own stock. However I think there's less popular support for grabbing family farms, corner delis, and emptying everyone's 401(k).

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I don't have the energy to argue much further, but I'll cop to speaking out of my ass on the gini index bit. As to other countries, there is data showing the US is middle of the pack of advanced nations in measures of inequality before taxes and transfers but rises to the top of the list after taxes and transfers.

Brief discussion recently posted in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opini ... worse.html

[sunnyside]

but I'll cop to speaking out of my ass on the gini index bit.

If this site had a "rep" function I'd have clicked it for that. That's very big of you given how the internet usually works.

As to other countries, there is data showing the US is middle of the pack of advanced nations in measures of inequality before taxes and transfers but rises to the top of the list after taxes and transfers.

Brief discussion recently posted in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/opini ... worse.html

Interesting. And I'd be inclined to believe that. They just flatten things out with taxes and transfers.