A Response to Charles Thorington re: The Necessity of Economic Progressivism
Background:
Mustache wearer, blogger and ostensible physics maven Charles Thorington has questioned the validity of economic progressivism on the grounds that it serves no useful function in a capitalism economy. I countered by suggesting that progressivism is the compromise which enabled western capitalism to survive the threat of socialist revolution, and that automation-led job losses would force us again to acknowledge its usefulness. He countered that the price mechanism is sufficient to allow automation to improve productivity and safeguard public welfare in the face of massive structural changes to the economy. Here is his response in full: http://www.adividedworld.com/economic-ideas/will-automation-require-progressive-unemployment-solutions/
Here is my response to him:
I appreciate your invocation of price mechanism here, which, on the contrary, I often find repetitious in your writing. It does very well to explain how a rising tide lifts all ships, in an absolute sense, and that capitalism will not implode due to inherent flaws on its own. It does little else. If the price of goods fall, then lower or nonexistent salaries will be cancelled out by the price of goods. And, if people were strictly rational actors, mass unemployment might be cancelled out by cheap goods and services. But in this case, a rationalist approach proves itself to be mostly irrelevant to reality. Let me explain with an oft-overlooked "dictate of reality":
People are concerned not only with their absolute material wealth but also their relative wealth and social standing.
Therefore, inequality matters even in the face of increasing absolute wealth. Some studies suggest it may matter more than absolute wealth. So reducing inequality is important if we are to prevent political strife and violence. Perhaps as important as improving GDP. Perhaps more. We've failed to do this, and we're beginning to see the consequences.
As before, an increasing element has already armed itself with Marxism. So, this element is better educated this time. The underlying formula, which is based in the belief that the wealth of the capital owners in not fairly distributed, is the same.
The vague gesture toward the concept of an ownership society is not enough of an answer from you, Charles, in the face of such peril. Even if neoliberal policy worked to increase GDP and reduce inequality, the "angry masses" would not care. You will never, ever convince the enough of them that it was through your effort and ideas that these things were accomplished. While such inequality exists, they will stew and foment discontent. They will only be appeased by a sincere effort to compromise, to take on faith that what they see is true, and that their experience is valid, which is that inequality and other issues that affect quality of life can be addressed by government intervention.
Here my argument is not an economic one, though there are the same old disagreements between us on how to run the economy as always. That disagreement is superseded by the more pressing risk that needs to be managed. As when we argued about global warming, you miss the forest for the trees. oI say again, so what if the danger is overblown by the UN public relations literature. It matters more that there is a danger that needs to weighed against other priorities.
If you want to reduce authoritarianism in university faculty, you must credit them with sincerity and intelligence, and help them do the same for you, or they will seek ever more drastic measures and positions to gain an upper hand in a battle of words. Which is what you are trying to do on this website, is it not? Why not address the elephant in the room: that risk management trumps the search for truth. The risk of authoritarianism, I must protest, in light of history and the incandescence of our present moment, is not an affliction limited to leftists, and it cannot be mitigated but by finding compromise and middle ground between the belligerents. Writing articles that dismiss progressivism on the grounds that it is economically imprudent or authoritarian are only adding fuel to the fire. The fact is that authoritarianism must be addressed, not merely described. I implore you to find common ground with the progressives. I implore you to consider the possibility that governmental intrusion in the economy need not end in disaster. If you cannot yet do this, I will continue to argue that you make fundamental errors in achieving certainty in order to enjoy the simplicity that certainty allows.
For example, you never convinced me that you were not conflating economic freedom with lack of governmental intrusion. You argue against government intrusion by virtue of the fact that economic freedom is correlated with greater growth. You fail to explain how it is that the many of the most progressive, leftist-slanted incarnations of capitalism appear near the top of the list of economic freedom. You may prevaricate by arguing that we don't have a high degree of economic freedom, but the implication is that no one in the world does. Thus you raise the stakes even more, and increase the risks that are entailed in the possibility of your ideas' failure. I will stick with the devil I know, i.e. what actually exists in the world, rather than risk revolutionary violence on the chance that the payoff will be worth risking the millions of lives at stake.
Mustache wearer, blogger and ostensible physics maven Charles Thorington has questioned the validity of economic progressivism on the grounds that it serves no useful function in a capitalism economy. I countered by suggesting that progressivism is the compromise which enabled western capitalism to survive the threat of socialist revolution, and that automation-led job losses would force us again to acknowledge its usefulness. He countered that the price mechanism is sufficient to allow automation to improve productivity and safeguard public welfare in the face of massive structural changes to the economy. Here is his response in full: http://www.adividedworld.com/economic-ideas/will-automation-require-progressive-unemployment-solutions/
Here is my response to him:
I appreciate your invocation of price mechanism here, which, on the contrary, I often find repetitious in your writing. It does very well to explain how a rising tide lifts all ships, in an absolute sense, and that capitalism will not implode due to inherent flaws on its own. It does little else. If the price of goods fall, then lower or nonexistent salaries will be cancelled out by the price of goods. And, if people were strictly rational actors, mass unemployment might be cancelled out by cheap goods and services. But in this case, a rationalist approach proves itself to be mostly irrelevant to reality. Let me explain with an oft-overlooked "dictate of reality":
People are concerned not only with their absolute material wealth but also their relative wealth and social standing.
Therefore, inequality matters even in the face of increasing absolute wealth. Some studies suggest it may matter more than absolute wealth. So reducing inequality is important if we are to prevent political strife and violence. Perhaps as important as improving GDP. Perhaps more. We've failed to do this, and we're beginning to see the consequences.
As before, an increasing element has already armed itself with Marxism. So, this element is better educated this time. The underlying formula, which is based in the belief that the wealth of the capital owners in not fairly distributed, is the same.
The vague gesture toward the concept of an ownership society is not enough of an answer from you, Charles, in the face of such peril. Even if neoliberal policy worked to increase GDP and reduce inequality, the "angry masses" would not care. You will never, ever convince the enough of them that it was through your effort and ideas that these things were accomplished. While such inequality exists, they will stew and foment discontent. They will only be appeased by a sincere effort to compromise, to take on faith that what they see is true, and that their experience is valid, which is that inequality and other issues that affect quality of life can be addressed by government intervention.
Here my argument is not an economic one, though there are the same old disagreements between us on how to run the economy as always. That disagreement is superseded by the more pressing risk that needs to be managed. As when we argued about global warming, you miss the forest for the trees. oI say again, so what if the danger is overblown by the UN public relations literature. It matters more that there is a danger that needs to weighed against other priorities.
If you want to reduce authoritarianism in university faculty, you must credit them with sincerity and intelligence, and help them do the same for you, or they will seek ever more drastic measures and positions to gain an upper hand in a battle of words. Which is what you are trying to do on this website, is it not? Why not address the elephant in the room: that risk management trumps the search for truth. The risk of authoritarianism, I must protest, in light of history and the incandescence of our present moment, is not an affliction limited to leftists, and it cannot be mitigated but by finding compromise and middle ground between the belligerents. Writing articles that dismiss progressivism on the grounds that it is economically imprudent or authoritarian are only adding fuel to the fire. The fact is that authoritarianism must be addressed, not merely described. I implore you to find common ground with the progressives. I implore you to consider the possibility that governmental intrusion in the economy need not end in disaster. If you cannot yet do this, I will continue to argue that you make fundamental errors in achieving certainty in order to enjoy the simplicity that certainty allows.
For example, you never convinced me that you were not conflating economic freedom with lack of governmental intrusion. You argue against government intrusion by virtue of the fact that economic freedom is correlated with greater growth. You fail to explain how it is that the many of the most progressive, leftist-slanted incarnations of capitalism appear near the top of the list of economic freedom. You may prevaricate by arguing that we don't have a high degree of economic freedom, but the implication is that no one in the world does. Thus you raise the stakes even more, and increase the risks that are entailed in the possibility of your ideas' failure. I will stick with the devil I know, i.e. what actually exists in the world, rather than risk revolutionary violence on the chance that the payoff will be worth risking the millions of lives at stake.
My responses to this post can be found in the posts "Concerning Ethics, Economics, and Social Reality" (URL: http://www.adividedworld.com/economic-ideas/concerning-ethics-economics-and-social-reality/), "The Growing American Ideological Conflict" (URL: http://www.adividedworld.com/political-ideas/the-growing-american-ideological-conflict/), and "The Ideological Nature of Authoritarian Government" (URL: http://www.adividedworld.com/political-ideas/the-ideological-nature-of-authoritarian-government/).
ReplyDelete