Progressive economics is Ptolemaic economics. Ptolemy and other geocentrists believed that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. Rather than accept the simpler heliocentric theory, geocentrists created increasingly elaborate and incorrect mathematical models to explain the heavenly bodies’ motion.
Similarly, progressive economics begins with a fundamentally flawed belief system. This 2016 statement from Bernie Sanders shows the core error: “You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”
Bernie Sanders described wealth and called it poverty. A grocery store that carries twenty three types of deodorant will also have ten varieties of apples in its well stocked produce section; fourteen different flavored yogurts; an entire aisle filled with breakfast cereals; pastas, breads, meats, cheese, desserts… Another store a few blocks away will be similarly stocked. This range of choices is the very definition of a wealthy society!
At its core, wealth is measured in options. Wealth is not measured in dollars, or land, or stocks, or other assets.
Again, wealth is measured in options. People and societies with a greater range of options are wealthier than those with fewer options. For example, America is much poorer now than at the beginning of the pandemic, and the last round of COVID relief accelerated the drawdown. The Fed’s reduced flexibility over the last year demonstrates this fact. In 2021 inflation was deemed transitory, and it was thought that the Fed MIGHT have to raise rates in 2022. Now, inflation is persistent and the Fed MUST raise rates at every opportunity through the end of the year. The Fed’s options have been greatly reduced over the past year; ergo, America must be much poorer than previously thought.
Just as wealth is measured in options, economic value is measured in productive output. Bernie’s statement shows that progressives misperceive wealth; similarly, progressives cannot understand economic value.
Raising the minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity is akin to converting from inches to millimeters and saying that everything is now 25X bigger. Except you are messing with people’s lives. For example, the median annual income in Mississippi is approximately $30K; conceivably, unemployment could hit 50% there under a $15/hour minimum wage. Nationally, unemployment and prices would rise, and some marginal (typically local and smaller) businesses would fail.
Progressive policies harm the most vulnerable-the opposite of their stated goal. The bottom economic rung is knocked out for the least skilled; the family owned hardware store closes while Home Depot thrives; and the poorest suffer most from the resulting inflation as the minimum wage doubles while everyone’s productivity-the true measure of economic value- is unchanged.
These deleterious effects are a natural consequence of progressive’s backward economic understanding. Progressive policies yield regressive results, as even Bernie’s statement implies. For he is saying that there are too many deodorant manufacturers and shoe companies employing too many people. His economic vision mandates consolidation into an oligarchy or similar wealth stunting economic system.
"At its core, wealth is measured in options." Is it? Always? In every case?
Even if it is, the problem that Bernie and his ilk like to call attention to is that the general welfare or common good of the country cannot be achieved if as a country we decide that the purpose of economic activity is to increase consumer options as compared to, say, provide for the needs of the whole population in a way that enables all (or at least most) to flourish. While wealth is (or can be) a social good, if all that it creates is an infinite amount of options that enables people to waste a substantial amount of their lives deciding which option to go with, then maybe we ought to view wealth as something of a mixed blessing and not as the only or best thing that we rely on to determine the general health & welfare of a society.
"Bernie Sanders described wealth and called it poverty." Yes, the paradox of having great wealth is that it can create certain kinds of poverty, especially the kinds that the materially-obsessed are oblivious to.
To me the idea of having wealth means having more options is fine. It's the incentive for accumulating more wealth. The problem with Bernie and BJG types is that to then equality is everyone having the same options without any effort on their part. That's the equity argument. Remember Kamala Harris' cartoon. If the 2 men start at the same level, they will attain the top. No discussion about who expends more energy, whose stronger, quicker, better climber. Also no discussion of what they find at the top or what they do with what they find or see.
The point that I was trying to make is, what is the purpose of accumulating wealth? If it’s to have more options, what does having those options serve? Accumulating wealth for it’s own sake or “to have more options” (as if there isn’t a limit to the number of options a person can have without suffering from cognitive overload) strikes me as being anti-social, and in any event, is just greedy. The wealthy don’t live in a void - what they do (or don’t do) affects other people, probably more so than whatever mundane choices your average Joe makes on a daily basis. If there’s no sense that as prominent members of our interdependent society, they have an obligation to serve others, then how can we make demands on any other person to behave in ways that aren’t entirely selfish? If everyone is just pursuing their own desires without any consideration of how their choices impact others, then how can we expect to maintain social cohesion?
Meeting the basic needs of at least most of the population doesn’t mean that there still isn’t going to be a certain amount (or even decent amount) of inequality - given the diversity of abilities, interests & inclinations that’s to be found in any population (not to mention whatever other advantages some people might have from their family or even social/kin group) and the choices that people make, there’s really no way of getting around the reality of wealth inequality (unless of course some sort of totalitarian regime is imposed). But trying to reduce inequality doesn’t have to involve imposing the sort of equity regime that some people are pushing these days. And of course *how* we go about making sure basic needs are met is obviously something that people are going to have disagreements on. But the goal of making sure that basic needs are met is one that I think any functional society needs to have to avoid breakdown and ensure its survival.
So much to unpack here. Meeting basic needs is why we have a welfare system. Don't know where you are, but in my state all the welfare benefits add up to approx. $40k. with very little skin in the game. Which with inflation is not a lot, but the person making $41k can barely make make it. "Greed is good!" when it incentivizes ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Most (not all) of the wealthy employ others and give much to charity. I don't want to reduce inequality, I want everyone to have the opportunity, depending on their abilities and "greed" to be on the other side of the divide.
I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
you've hot the nail... Apparently "productiveness" and "earn-ability", like "meritocracy", are Enlightenment, Capitalist ideals born in white supremacy and need to be stamped out.
Progressive economics is Ptolemaic economics. Ptolemy and other geocentrists believed that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. Rather than accept the simpler heliocentric theory, geocentrists created increasingly elaborate and incorrect mathematical models to explain the heavenly bodies’ motion.
Similarly, progressive economics begins with a fundamentally flawed belief system. This 2016 statement from Bernie Sanders shows the core error: “You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”
Bernie Sanders described wealth and called it poverty. A grocery store that carries twenty three types of deodorant will also have ten varieties of apples in its well stocked produce section; fourteen different flavored yogurts; an entire aisle filled with breakfast cereals; pastas, breads, meats, cheese, desserts… Another store a few blocks away will be similarly stocked. This range of choices is the very definition of a wealthy society!
At its core, wealth is measured in options. Wealth is not measured in dollars, or land, or stocks, or other assets.
Again, wealth is measured in options. People and societies with a greater range of options are wealthier than those with fewer options. For example, America is much poorer now than at the beginning of the pandemic, and the last round of COVID relief accelerated the drawdown. The Fed’s reduced flexibility over the last year demonstrates this fact. In 2021 inflation was deemed transitory, and it was thought that the Fed MIGHT have to raise rates in 2022. Now, inflation is persistent and the Fed MUST raise rates at every opportunity through the end of the year. The Fed’s options have been greatly reduced over the past year; ergo, America must be much poorer than previously thought.
Just as wealth is measured in options, economic value is measured in productive output. Bernie’s statement shows that progressives misperceive wealth; similarly, progressives cannot understand economic value.
Raising the minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity is akin to converting from inches to millimeters and saying that everything is now 25X bigger. Except you are messing with people’s lives. For example, the median annual income in Mississippi is approximately $30K; conceivably, unemployment could hit 50% there under a $15/hour minimum wage. Nationally, unemployment and prices would rise, and some marginal (typically local and smaller) businesses would fail.
Progressive policies harm the most vulnerable-the opposite of their stated goal. The bottom economic rung is knocked out for the least skilled; the family owned hardware store closes while Home Depot thrives; and the poorest suffer most from the resulting inflation as the minimum wage doubles while everyone’s productivity-the true measure of economic value- is unchanged.
These deleterious effects are a natural consequence of progressive’s backward economic understanding. Progressive policies yield regressive results, as even Bernie’s statement implies. For he is saying that there are too many deodorant manufacturers and shoe companies employing too many people. His economic vision mandates consolidation into an oligarchy or similar wealth stunting economic system.
"At its core, wealth is measured in options." Is it? Always? In every case?
Even if it is, the problem that Bernie and his ilk like to call attention to is that the general welfare or common good of the country cannot be achieved if as a country we decide that the purpose of economic activity is to increase consumer options as compared to, say, provide for the needs of the whole population in a way that enables all (or at least most) to flourish. While wealth is (or can be) a social good, if all that it creates is an infinite amount of options that enables people to waste a substantial amount of their lives deciding which option to go with, then maybe we ought to view wealth as something of a mixed blessing and not as the only or best thing that we rely on to determine the general health & welfare of a society.
"Bernie Sanders described wealth and called it poverty." Yes, the paradox of having great wealth is that it can create certain kinds of poverty, especially the kinds that the materially-obsessed are oblivious to.
To me the idea of having wealth means having more options is fine. It's the incentive for accumulating more wealth. The problem with Bernie and BJG types is that to then equality is everyone having the same options without any effort on their part. That's the equity argument. Remember Kamala Harris' cartoon. If the 2 men start at the same level, they will attain the top. No discussion about who expends more energy, whose stronger, quicker, better climber. Also no discussion of what they find at the top or what they do with what they find or see.
The point that I was trying to make is, what is the purpose of accumulating wealth? If it’s to have more options, what does having those options serve? Accumulating wealth for it’s own sake or “to have more options” (as if there isn’t a limit to the number of options a person can have without suffering from cognitive overload) strikes me as being anti-social, and in any event, is just greedy. The wealthy don’t live in a void - what they do (or don’t do) affects other people, probably more so than whatever mundane choices your average Joe makes on a daily basis. If there’s no sense that as prominent members of our interdependent society, they have an obligation to serve others, then how can we make demands on any other person to behave in ways that aren’t entirely selfish? If everyone is just pursuing their own desires without any consideration of how their choices impact others, then how can we expect to maintain social cohesion?
Meeting the basic needs of at least most of the population doesn’t mean that there still isn’t going to be a certain amount (or even decent amount) of inequality - given the diversity of abilities, interests & inclinations that’s to be found in any population (not to mention whatever other advantages some people might have from their family or even social/kin group) and the choices that people make, there’s really no way of getting around the reality of wealth inequality (unless of course some sort of totalitarian regime is imposed). But trying to reduce inequality doesn’t have to involve imposing the sort of equity regime that some people are pushing these days. And of course *how* we go about making sure basic needs are met is obviously something that people are going to have disagreements on. But the goal of making sure that basic needs are met is one that I think any functional society needs to have to avoid breakdown and ensure its survival.
So much to unpack here. Meeting basic needs is why we have a welfare system. Don't know where you are, but in my state all the welfare benefits add up to approx. $40k. with very little skin in the game. Which with inflation is not a lot, but the person making $41k can barely make make it. "Greed is good!" when it incentivizes ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Most (not all) of the wealthy employ others and give much to charity. I don't want to reduce inequality, I want everyone to have the opportunity, depending on their abilities and "greed" to be on the other side of the divide.
I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
you've hot the nail... Apparently "productiveness" and "earn-ability", like "meritocracy", are Enlightenment, Capitalist ideals born in white supremacy and need to be stamped out.
Sorry. "Hit the nail..."
Yes a higher minimum wage will either drive inflation or unemployment.
You sold me. Rather, You said what I believe a lot better 'n I would-a. Thank You.