-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/07/17/the-argument-for-preemptive-redistribution/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- A Little Mystic Nationalism
- Scott Winship on Income Inequality
- Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
- Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
- Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
'Redistributive action', meaning the expropriation of some elites for the sake of political elites who -- in the subsequent 'distribute' -- will corrupt the remainder of society as a means of securing the persistence of the always and future exploiter: the state. Worries about a 'capture' are beside the point, which is: have you looked at this thing, recently?
Yes and men of power and excess wealth are pretty good at using it for preemptive wars that.... make them more money. They seem to always get over the bar.
Again on;
"You need to be pretty convincing that in the absence of preemptive action, something bad will occur."WW
I'd call the Great Depression pretty bad. And have you read the Financial Times lately? Did you hear Bernanke speak the other day?
http://specials.ft.com/vtf_pdf/160708_FRONT1_US...
This whole trillion dollar credit fiasco is the result of bankers and Wall Street Stockjobbers pulling regulations and fed policy their way and using the backing of the US Treasury to do so. It's been an incredible massive transfer of wealth based solely on policy pushed by the wealthy's lobbyist.
How do you continually see the real logic of people like WIll, Boudreaux, Russ Roberts (and me and others on this site) right in front of your face and then continually let it pass right over your head?
It's almost comical.
Consider WW in this very posting:
Why not suppose instead that when taxes on the wealthy rise, the wealthy become more interested in controlling the government?
None of this not to say that various individuals and corporate interests do not try their damndest to use the government to enrich themselves; they most certainly do.
...rent-seeking is a largely a zero-sum game that puts some rich people at odds with other rich people (and the rest of us). The billionaires...are trying to put other billionaires out of business. Etc....
The straightforward implication is that the more power the government has to pick winners and losers, the more power rich people will have relative to poor people. The incentive to capture is a function of the value of the thing captured, not of the the means to do it.
That last bold quote is the bottom line of the causal paradigm...yet you never address it. WHY? (if you respond to this, please answer that question at the very least.)
The way you say things, this construct seems to totally escape you.
Look at what you present...the Great Depression, bailouts, Wall St.
None of these things are really the same thing as what Will is talking about.
Moreover, as far as those things are concerned, sometimes it's really just a matter of the government provoking bad results from bad policy:
Cheap credit is double edged sword. And bad Fed policy is not always crafted with the rich in mind. Sometimes, it's just bad and when it is, it can create problems that would never get baseless calls for some kind of generic legislation if the bad policy to didn't provoke dangerous behavior in the first place.
Why must the general will of the economic plutocracy be determinate? As noted in the post, elites interests are not homogenous, but they undoubtedly lean in to one side on certain policy matters.
<<First of all, the level of income inequality in Denmark, which has the lowest Gini coefficient in the world, is high enough to permit government capture by the wealthy were the wealthy to effectively coordinate. The question is whether they want to. They don’t.>>
Why not? With this you apparently commit yourself a deeper contradiction: people who refuse to pursue their rational self-interest. Homo Economicus is dead? You're also apparently assuming enrichment happens in a vacuum -- the rich could do it if they want to -- without imagining the possibility of an effective counter-balance, one enabled by a more vibrant, engaged democracy.
It's also mighty curious how decreasing taxes on the rich will "unleash a little more entrepreneurial energy." One of the problems with high rates of inequality is that it threatens meritocracy. I think Buffett compared it to choosing the 2008 Olympic team on the grounds that their ancestors were previously victorious.
isn't the real justification for pre-emptive redistribution just the dissolution (actual or pre-emptive) of capture-like power, generally? This is to say, there is a fine line between capture and democratic will in the sense that what people want, whether by a paying minority or a voting majority, isn't necessarily efficient (for the whole). Forget about pre-emptive redistribution blunting the power of the rich to capture tax policy and consider the possibility that pre-emptive redistribution can blunt the power of the not-rich to capture (electorally) tax policy.
Or, perhaps, we have perfected democracy by empowering the non-democratic minority (the rich) to balance and frustrate the democratic will. The battle of short-term foolishnesses that add up to not much of anything -- that is, a mere space in which the operate.
But, I digress.
Rent-seeking depends on the possibility of concentrated benefits and diffused costs. It's inequality of benefit not inequality of resources to spend on that benefit that matters. Even in a perfectly wealth egalitarian society, you could see rent-seeking under such conditions. However, since rents are scarce, when there is wealth inequality, then, all things equal, you'd expect the price to be bid up by those with more resources. So, it's true that in unequal societies, the rich capture more rents (and there are other reasons why this is so, such as the rich tend to be educated enough to know how to do this), but that doesn't mean that in equal societies, there won't be rent-seeking.
Rich people wield a disproportionate share of the government's power, so let's increase the size and scope of the government, and increase taxes.
Obviously, the solution to the problem of government capture is to shrink the government, not raise taxes. Raising taxes will just make it harder for those currently not wealthy to become wealthy. Even more perversely, increasing taxes puts more of our money in the hands of those plutocrats who bought the government!
That said, there is SURELY a correlation between inequality and capture, since capture tends to produce inequality. But the direction of causation is what's at issue here. Cross-nationally, inequality is correlated with lots of terrible things, but that's because mechanisms that produce inequality, like political predation, also cause poverty and social instability. So the mechanism is key.
I'm pretty sure this says the opposite of what you meant.
Maybe you should add another negative!
What we can never do is to question the value of the state powers that incentivize the capture. That's crazy talk!
That's a faith-based belief--rooted, I think, in a hermetic theology--not a fact. To the extent that the winners that the government picks are poor people, it's a false belief.
<it> The incentive to capture is a function of the value of the thing captured, not of the the means to do it.</it>
The assumption here is that government is a single "thing" there for the capture. Not the case. Defense dollars, for instance, are wildly subject to capture by the rich. EITC and ADC dollars are decidedly not.