A worthy debate
Econospeak’s Peter Dorman has an excellent debate going on with Sandwichman and cian, among others, about using GDP as a main measure of a healthy economy, the components of growing the economy, and the state of mainstream political economic discourse. We have touched on related issues on Angry Bear. Our own Rusty puts the question in literal and layman’s terms. It is a theme that would be worth pursuing here I believe.
dan:
And the question is:
How does a nation achieve a positive gdp growth with less of the population employed?
Run, the answer’s obvious. Take more from those who have jobs and or weath and give to those who have less; thereby multiple counting of the original $. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Dan, any discussion over redistribution is a political discussion and not economic. It matters not when it is a discussion over the value of measuring economic growth via GDP or any other measure. At least the discussion over the values of the US left: “…convinces me that the US left is nowhere near ready for prime time. There is a flippancy and anti-intellectualism that is as immature as anything you’ll find among the Tea Partiers.”
My question. When Dorman uses the term anti-intellectualism is he actually saying sound economic policy?
Dan,
Thanks for mentioning our “debate” — such as it is. I would certainly like to draw Peter out a bit more. I am continuing my side of the debate on my blog, Ecological Headstand, but would be happy to cross post to Angry Bear if there is interest.
Aside from any “flippancy and anti-intellectualism” there may be on “the left,” there is a deeper and more corrosive amnesia and silence from the broad spectrum running from the mainstream to the “respectable left” regarding the fundamental question of what exactly it is that is allegedly growing. With regard to the 1948 debate between Simon Kuznets and the Commerce Department economists, our institutionalized progressive economists appear to be siding with Commerce by default. That is, they don’t seem to be aware of the debate or what it was about.
Sandwichman–I cannot contribute to this discussion. But, I would certainly like to read what you have to say. I would welcome your thoughts here. NancyO
You’ll have to ask Peter Dorman about his meanings.
However, I believe it is political economics being discussed, and the topic of economics is quite relevant to the American strain of political discourse, no matter the particular party-it looked like he was saying both movements contain anti-intellectualism and a more than ample quota of flippant commentary.
Sounds good to try!
CoRev: “Dan, any discussion over redistribution is a political discussion and not economic.”
Really? First, how do you separate economics from politics? Second, I am politically disinclined towards redistribution, but I think that now it makes a whole lot of sense economically. 😉
just wanted to let you know your (open salon) link isn’t working properly.
great blog btw!
Dan & Min, you are confusing the functional study and description, economics, with its policy implementations, politics. Studying and explaining how something works is different from implementing a specific methodology within that understood explanation.
So, Min, it is quite easy to separate economics from politics. Regrettably, it is the linkage of the two that is problematical.
The assertion that income distribution is only a political issue and not an economic issue is ridiculous on its face. Income distribution is – by definition – an economic issue. Insisting it is not does not change that. Once you start with such a false premise, all the rest of this “separate economics from politics” business is just blather. If you fail to make an honest start, an honest discussion is not likely to follow.
Since CoRev wants discussion of income distribution to be all about poliitics, it seems fair to consider whether there could be a political motive for insisting that it remain a political discussion. Very clearly, making sure that the discussion remain political means that it cannot become a discussion of economics. That is to say, making sure that redistribution never gets down to being a practical discussion that could lead to further implimentation of redistribution. As long as we are stuck in the continuous loop of right-wing insistence on its own rhetorical tropes – redistribution (toward the poor) is class warfare and all that – then we never arrive at actual policy.
Interestingly, that is also the approach that has killed any hope of additional stimulus, any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emission, and so on.
It is also quite facetious. CoRev is reliably a spokesman for the right, and a self-admitted partisan in the mid-term elections. The agenda of the right has been highly redistirbutionist through the Reagan-Gingrich-Shrub era. CoRev wants to chat about politics, rather than economics, while his boys and girls continue to jigger the economics of the country to their own advantage. Seen clearly, CoRev’s insistence that an issue that is very clearly economic not be discussed in terms of economics is pure politics – just the way he wants it.
kharris:
My statement was never meant to be one solely taken as a redistribution of income. I do believe the economy has been skewed in favor of capital appreciation without Labor over product and service containing Labor content and we are experiencing the results of such policies put into play. Until the paradigm is changed to reversed or changed to allow business that is labor intensive and also profitable in the same measure, our efforts to influence job creation will be difficult and unimpressive.
sandwichman:
I would love to see your posts on Angry Bear also. I have been a follower for some time now. Not sure if I understand all you have expounded upon; but, your words come close to my own beliefs on Labor.
Min:
Corev chooses to skew my statement to suit his needs. Do you really believe what I said is absolutely dealing with a redistribution of income?
I think I understand your intent Corev, but the story base may not be very accurate. That is a different question from what to do now if there is basic disatisfaction with Pres. Obama’s performance, his message and such.
KH, learn to read! I referenced re-distribution not distribution of income.
Dan said: “…but the story base may not be very accurate.” I think in this we could have a short discussion.
But Dan also said this: “That is a different question from what to do now if there is basic disatisfaction with Pres. Obama’s performance, his message and such.” And, here we could discuss many facets.
Voters, mostly conservatives, have already made one attempt to voice their dissatisfaction. Now we see the liberal/Dem factions joining in showing their dissatisfaction. How far will it go?
KH, sigh! So much fat with so little meat. You actually make my earlier point regarding cognitive dissonance: “From this conservative it appears that cognitive dissonance is the explanation for the anti-intellectualism comments. Failing to admit the obvious and relying on any excuse other than the obvious is fascinating to watch, but painful for the country.”
Your policy views are and were wrong! Now that they have been implemented, their failures are breath taking, and reality is now setting in with the liberal wing of the Dem party with the exception of the few. And, that is the cognitive dissonance you personally display.
KH, sigh! So much fat with so little meat. You actually make my earlier point regarding cognitive dissonance: “From this conservative it appears that cognitive dissonance is the explanation for the anti-intellectualism comments. Failing to admit the obvious and relying on any excuse other than the obvious is fascinating to watch, but painful for the country.”
Liberal policy views are and were wrong! Now that they have been implemented, their failures are breath taking, and reality is now setting in with that wing of the Dem party with the exception of the few. And, that is the cognitive dissonance you, KH, personally display.
“Can anyone answer the question I have raised here several times: How can you continue to support an administration that callously ignores and continues the pain of suffering of those out of work? Denial leading to cognitive dissonance is one explanation, but how much longer will it take before reality finally sets in with liberals?” CoRev
Callously ignores? What cooperation has there been from either side of the aisle regarding the “pain and suffering of those out of work?” And what is your solution to that problem? Let me guess. Cut the taxes of corporations and the welathiest Americans. Arthur Laffer, deception is thy name/game. What solutioons do you offer, CoRev? Obama has been too interested in conciliation and compromise while his Republican foils ahve been too determiined to obfuscate, confound and otherwise interfere with any and all efforts to invigorate the economy. Obama a liberal? By what measure? Oh, you mean he doesn’t read and study at the alter of Ayn Rand, but he does pay too much attention to corporate shills.
Frankly until corporate America sees fit to share the product of labor with those that provide the labor nothing is likely to change. The wealthiest Americans have ben experiencing an increasingly larger and larger share of the fruits of production efforts. The average American worker has been experiencing little more than hard times. That is not the basis of economic growth and prosperity, other than for the One Percenters Club.
“Liberal policy views are and were wrong! Now that they have been implemented, their failures are breath taking, and reality is now setting in with that wing of the Dem party with the exception of the few.” Corev
Well there you go, getting all fired up over your story line. It doesn’t leave much room for discussion other than to say you lose, I win sort of thing. Disatisfaction does not equal embrace of the other side in a two party system, nor is such a story about policies. It is about story lines.
And it is not especially accurate nor offers comments on the actors.
Dan, story lines are a good or bad thing???? When using “story line” are you are you sugar coating views or analysis?
I’ll admit it was a hyperbolic challenge, but no one has yet answered the challenge. Which policies, other than those carried over from Bush, have been successful? If you determine one/some to be successful how do we measure?
I think Gerson’s article was pointing out the growing dissatisfaction within the Dem ranks of Obama. My view/analysis/story line is an attempt to explain that dissatisfaction. Are you claiming Gerson/me wrong about the dissatisfaction and explanation for it?
Just wondering.
CoRev learn to think! You are implying some fundamental difference between pie slices before and after they reach the pie slicer that doesn’t exist.
The distribution of pie slices from gains from productivity doesn’t occur in a power vacuum, someone makes those decisions and in a capitalist economy that tends to be representatives of capital (in a corporation the Board of Directors). Your argument maintains that once that initial ‘legitimate’ distribution has occurred, however influenced by maximization of self and class interest, that any subsequent attempts to alter that are just illegitimate ‘redistribution’. Typically you are building your conclusion into your definitions. You are inserting ‘equity’ into a power equation that in the real world has no room for it.
The pie slicer ends up with the biggest slice of pie. Who woulda thunk it? But gosh it HAS to be fair!
“Which policies, other than those carried over from Bush, have been successful?”
Which makes CoRev a big TARP supporter. Good to know, though it may draw some spit on his crumpet on his next visit to the Tea Party. Uh CoRev? Which administration was it that urged Fannie and Freddie, previously barred from the sub-prime market, to rush in and gobble up all those previously uninsurable (by them) mortgages? Well THAT was successful! (Like TARP in bailing out the positions of the private banksters.)
Bruce, your analogy is interesting, but has little reference to my point. What I said was redistribution “Dan, any discussion over redistribution is a political discussion and not economic.”
You, like KH, are confusing the terms distribution and redistribution. Then you go off on a tangent re: equity and fairness, and then claim they were introduced by me. No, they were your concepts. You’re arguing with yourself.
Bruce, your analogy is interesting, but has little reference to my point. What I said was: “Dan, any discussion over redistribution is a political discussion and not economic.”
You, like KH, are confusing the terms distribution and redistribution. Then you go off on a tangent re: equity and fairness, and then claim they were introduced by me. No, they were your concepts. You’re arguing with yourself.