tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post589484577803644323..comments2023-10-01T09:22:37.695-07:00Comments on Economists for Obama: Obama vs McCain on Taxes: Feldstein and Taylor Can't Obscure the TruthDon Pedrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-31296659257440972992008-09-04T07:37:00.000-07:002008-09-04T07:37:00.000-07:00His big picture: forcible redistribution of wealth...His big picture: forcible redistribution of wealth. We'll take a disproportionate amount of wealth from rich people and distribute it among the masses. Do people even ask what the effect of this is on the economy as a whole? Whenever capital is moved or allocated in a particular way, there is an effect. What is it? It may, in fact, be incredibly short-sighted to assume, based on moral prejudices, that this redistribution is actually good for the economy and hence the masses. I'm not convinced that it is. Make the argument, not based on moral grounds, but based on facts. <BR/><BR/>Fairness may be an important issue, but if fairness is placed ahead of the health of the economy as a whole, then everyone suffers, even those at the bottom. I'm not sure Obama even thinks about this. He's too busy (along with most other liberals) trying to make himself feel good about himself by advocating for "fairness" without thinking about its effect on the economy as a whole (which effects the very people he's trying to help) and affects how people view themselves and the government. I prefer advocating for policies that promote 1) the health of the economy over someone's self-determined view of fairness and 2) an attitude of independence rather than dependence and victimization.<BR/><BR/>Paternalistic racism was an attitude that existed among many slave owners. It's the attitude that the poor pitiful slave was inherently limited in his ability to care for himself in a way consistent with civilized society; so the slave owner was really doing the slave a favor by keeping him and providing for his basic needs, for surely the poor black man could not really care for himself. It's called paternalistic racism because slave owners viewed themselves as almost father-like in their ability to provide for their poor hapless slaves, who weren't blessed with whiteness. Of course, this attitude existed to various degrees amongst slave owners. It's the same attitude, in my mind, that's present among liberals today. Poor people can't take care of themselves; so we, in our superior wisdom, will provide for them and teach them how to live. It's an affront to human dignity.<BR/><BR/>Aw, values: your determination of what is right and wrong. So what is right and what is wrong? You seem to consider it right for everyone to have good health care coverage. And that's a noble objective, but this is an optimization problem with many variables and you just assigned a weight of unity to one variable and zero to the rest. Because I realize that it is nearly impossible to get everything you want from a system, you need to set out clear pragmatic objectives and then optimize the system. For health care: quality, inherent cost-control mechanisms, affordability, access. How one chooses to optimize the system does affect the other stated objectives. I am convinced that more of these objectives are achieved when the government provides incentives for individuals to care for themselves rather than for the government to simply take care of people. Power to the consumer, not to the government. When you turn this power over to the government, the government can use it to manipulate and control people. No thanks.<BR/><BR/>By the way, for a pro-Obama blog, you guys are one of the best. Most of the others are just trash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-38513347085314599342008-09-03T18:15:00.000-07:002008-09-03T18:15:00.000-07:00Dear Anonymous:For a good discussion of Obama's bi...Dear Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>For a good discussion of Obama's big picture view on the economy, see this article:<BR/>http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-big-picture-on-economy.html<BR/><BR/>Fairness is recognized by economics as an important issue, going back to Adam Smith.<BR/><BR/>I can't tell what you're trying to say with "paternalistic racism." Are there really people who hate other people for their own good?<BR/><BR/>On health care, there's much more to say than I can address here. I see this as a fundamental question of values. I am with the great majority of Americans who believe that it is a problem that 1 in 4 kids in this country goes without health care. Your attitude towards those kids is "tough luck." I don't think there's anything I could say that would change your thinking.Don Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-28577585866664653032008-09-03T16:19:00.000-07:002008-09-03T16:19:00.000-07:00Anon: Great points. The tyranny of the majority ...Anon: Great points. The tyranny of the majority at work right? Screw those with higher incomes as long as more people get a tax cut. I'm paying 50% on the dollar now thanks to AMT and the CA rates.....I think I'll move to Sweden.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-49417697167165146352008-09-03T06:55:00.000-07:002008-09-03T06:55:00.000-07:00Obama's fundamental guiding principle regarding ec...Obama's fundamental guiding principle regarding economic theory seems to be this: in the name of fairness, we must set up a system that redistributes wealth from high to low. Does any legitimate economist subscribe to this as the fundamental guiding principle for deciding good economic policy? Do we really want a president who sees it as his mission to tweak the economy to be "fair" according to his definition of fair? I certainly don't.<BR/><BR/>I am in favor of pushing as much of the responsibility to the consumer as possible and McCain's health care program does this better. If you want to control costs, you either put responsibility in the hands of the consumers or in the hands of the government. When you put it in the hands of the consumer and prices get too high, then innovative ideas result to address the problem. When you put it in the hands of the government, you get pandering that results in atrocious policies such as price controls.<BR/><BR/>Have we really reached a point in our civilization when, as a people, we don't feel as if we are sufficiently capable (i.e. mentally tough, ambitious, innovative, industrious) to take care of ourselves and we need our pitiful government to care for us? Wow, how far we have wandered from what made America great. I guess if you do feel this way, then you need to go ahead and elect Obama because he'll take care of your poor pitiful self. (It quite frankly reminds me of the paternalistic racism that existed during the time of slavery and seems to still exist among liberal elites.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-48830144806830569072008-09-02T21:38:00.000-07:002008-09-02T21:38:00.000-07:00Lerxst:Nice post. And Henry Aaron's article about ...Lerxst:<BR/>Nice post. And Henry Aaron's article about some (not even all!) of the uncertainties around McCain's health care plan is very well done.<BR/><BR/>Note, however, that it's less clear to me now whether or not McCain's health tax credits could still be used by people who continued to have employer-based coverage. I assumed in my earlier post that they could not, because that was my understanding based on what I'd seen in media reports and Holtz-Eakin's explanation. But I noticed that the Tax Policy Center's preliminary analysis assumes that people with employer-based coverage can still claim the credit.<BR/><BR/>I've been waiting for a more comprehensive analysis of the proposal to come out so that I could write an updated, better-informed post. But I haven't seen anything--I suspect this is because for the reasons Aaron points out, there's tremendous uncertainty in how McCain's proposal would work out, so it's very hard to forecast.<BR/><BR/>What is clear is that the goal and endgame of the McCain proposal is killing the current employer-based system. Confusingly, though, Holtz-Eakin denies this is the case (in an NY Times article I cited in my earlier post.)Don Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.com