MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 4 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 5 days ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
The meaning of “socialism” in American politics
By EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 8:51am |A terrific perspective on the way we are from Steve Waldman:
"So, call me a philistine, but I really think that the Tea Party types have gotten a bum rap over their whole “Keep Government Out Of My Medicare” slogan. Yes, Medicare is a government benefit. One’s Medicare card represents a claim on the government that can be redeemed for goods and services, usually delivered by private sector providers.
You know what else is a claim on government that can be surrendered for goods and services from private sector providers? Money. Yet there is no part of the political spectrum that considers it incoherent to say “Keep Government Out Of My Pocketbook”, even though the only relevant thing your pocketbook contains is government scrip. If the money analogy seems to forced, consider a retirement account chock-full of government bonds. The account contains nothing more or less than government promises to pay, but that doesn’t render it incoherent to object to the government’s altering the terms of the bundle of promises, whether by restructuring the debt or more aggressive taxation."
URL:
http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1272.html
- Add new comment
- 1241 reads
Comments
Entitlement programs, like Social Security, is a common good for the whole over the common good for the one.
As a veteran I earned entitlements, but have not been allowed to execise my right to use because of politics trumping needs. Also, I have extra money being taken out of my paycheck for entitlements I will never be able to use even though I qualify for them and have a need.
But what's missing from the article is I can't transfer those property rights. Whereas, if I had put my money into bonds, 401-Ks and so forth, I would have access to and the ability to move those funds as I choose.
So I disagree with the suggestion social security, medicare, medicard and other government entitlement progrms are property rights simply because I can't take possession of the funds accreditted to me nor do I have a access that would allow me to decide how my funds should be invested for my future needs. That is what property rights allows one to do, doesn't it? take ownership?
by Beetlejuice on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:13am
Well, yes....and no.
I once thought as you do after first thinking the other way and now I am in a whole new ballpark; however, to be fair Steve Waldman is not claiming these things are property but only that that is how they are perceived by very many people and should be factored into policy designs. In his own words:
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 12:13pm
However, it doesn't diminish the fact that people have paid into the social system so there has to be a sense of ownership otherwise people would have demanded to opt out years ago. So by paying into the system, you become an owner, hence the property rights mentality of the public for government entitlement programs. Policy should have figured that out years ago and dealt with it and the constraints and opportunities should be obvious. My impression is the author is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
by Beetlejuice on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:29pm
We are obviously reading this from different viewpoints. Would you please help me understand yours better by identifying which is the mountain and which the molehill.
Also, my understanding is that the ownership angle of Social Security was built into the design to make it difficult if not impossible to kill. In other words, it is a feature, not a bug. It is literally an annuity hence the name Social Security Insurance. That that has been obscured so well is evidence of the determination of its original opponents who still want to kill it after all this time.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:37pm
Interesting argument. Of course, I don't think the author considers that his argument slices both ways. Think of all arguments against socialism (or other forms of government intervention), and then consider how many are rendered obviously hollow by reminding those making the arguments that the government regulates money.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:35am
Yes, they are which should be a big honking clue to progressive policy makers as the best way to fight back. The problem seems to be that people who self-identify as progressive tend to be social but not economic progressives. In other words, most are as neoliberal economically as Obama which really means they are economic conservatives.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 12:19pm
Got some evidence for this claim? I think it is wrong, especially amongst younger voters.
That said, it's clearly an assumption behind Waldman's whole conceptual 'trojan horse' strategy as regards turning the concept of property on its head. I just don't think its going to work. People have a vague and incoherent folk concept of property and Waldman's can slice and dice it up in however many fancy ways and it won't, imo, convince anyone.
Tea partiers are going nuts about entitlement cuts because they are all medicare and SS recipients. I.e. self-interest without too much extra high falutin philosophical theory is at the heart of their position. Not really worth overthinking this one.
But, aside from this particular post, I'm a huge fan of Waldman. Smartest and most original econoblogger out there.
by Obey on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:44pm
This is interesting.
What Waldman says here about property rings very true to me but not to you or Beetlejuice and I would really like to understand why the difference. I have a working theory that the difference in perceptions may result from differences in backgrounds: academic/public services versus business/finance. Not sure how to test it without being too nosy for online etiquette.
As for evidence of my claim, check any number of progressive blogs, even the great orange Satan, pre-2008 and you can find many many progressives quite smug in self-describing as socially progressive but fiscally conservative. There is even a great NewYorker cartoon out there that jokingly defines that as someone who is cheap but likes to sleep around. :D
Check out TPMCafe's archives for the discussion on heterodox economists that James Galbraith started and another one with Matt Bai on his book that included some economic discussions about privatizing Social Security.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:11pm
Part of the problem is also in how one defines "fiscally conservative". To me (someone who would tend to self label as "fiscally conservative"), it means being strongly against deficit spending, such as financing wars by going into debt. I think there are times when that "evil" must be borne, such as when looking into the chasm of a great depression, but that, usually, we shouldn't spend more than we take in. I'm guessing you (and others) define "fiscally conservative" differently, e.g., to exclude any form of income redistribution. That's not how I use the term, but I don't claim any sort of ownership on the term, either.
P.S. In case it's not clear, I'm mostly in academia.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:24pm
Absolutely! How one defines the term is crucial and I meant to put that in somewhere. Thanks for doing it for me and for letting me know your background. For the record, mine is accounting and finance. Actually, accounting plus operations and compliance for some financial service firms.
To me, fiscal conservative means Libertarian as in Cato Libertarians. Randians is a better description. It irks me that they have branded themselves with such a great word.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:51pm
Although some of the more academic Libertarians share Ayn's atheism (I know a few), I often wonder just what percentage of the overall mass of so-called Libertarians are similarly inclined. I suspect it's not a very significant percentage, but I could be wrong.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:56pm
Not gonna go there. Sorry.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 4:07pm
So, as regards your working theory, I'm in academia, with a background in journalism and a stint in finance (applying behavioral finance research for a midsize asset manager). But, yeah, definitely more of an academic temperament/mindset. Don't know what your theory is, though. Would like to hear it.
:0)
From my own connections to finance, I'd say your view works there - many many are progressive on the environment, gay rights, war and torture, yet like low taxes and worry alot about welfare queens and such (i.e. a fiscal conservatism of sorts). I don't think it's true of the wider population, and I'm not going by anecdotal evidence among academics. I'm thinking of polling that suggests people would prefer tax hikes on the rich to spending cuts. Even among non-progressives. (I'll try to dig up the relevant poll some other time - I'm travelling with a lousy modem....)
by Obey on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 8:48pm
but not to you or Beetlejuice and I would really like to understand why the difference
Well to help you with your study, DanK said similar in response to me when I said similar to Waldman on this thread:
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/are-american-attitudes-wealth-distributi...
Personally, I think they have an elite effete view that they assume could be shared in American culture and I think that is dead wrong, I think they are a small minority and the majority has not changed. It's really not rocket science if you've studied American history.
Don't have time to do a proper job, will just throw out some quick thoughts...
Overall, our immigrants (and passed down trhough their children), and I mean even those from before the founding of the formal U.S.A., they didn't/don't love the country so much for our constitutional freedoms but for the ability to own some stuff of their very own where they could be the king of their own little castle, whether individually or in groups or tribes. Only the powerful got to own stuff in the old country, whether royals, elites, central government or the communist party, here they could own stuff, king of their own little castle. That's always been one of the biggest draws of this country, and it lives on in family myths passed down about arriving on Ellis Island with a dollar in your pocket and a dream or whatever. To be king of your own castle. (Those on the left can thrown in the Howard Zinn about how it really was stealing from the aborigines and Jefferson's castle and Washington's White House built by slaves, go right ahead, that doesn't change the main ownership myth, it might even reinforce it.)
And I don't think most see Federal Reserve manipulations of the money supply as part of a socialist government, that's just the way it is (might behoove to go back to things like the "cross of gold" speech., not to mention the revolt the Tea Party's name references.) Also, there is no negativity towards chosing socialism within your own little group, i.e., pooling resources as many immigrant groups do, they just don't want a federal government making you do it with everybody else in the whole country. It's a key part of degree of tolerance achieved in this country, the whole mutli/culti thing that France or Germany struggles with, there's a point where "the common good" nostrum goes too far and infringes on property rights uber alles. If you want to start blood boiling equally across a wide political span of liberal to conservative Americans, bring up a controversial "eminent domain" court case. I think we've had discussions before about how when equivalent things happen in China these days, the people just shrug and do what the government says, with a "nothing can be done about it" attitude. It angers Americans because private ownership rights are one of the basic cultural mores of this country.
I would like to add something on the Medicare point he makes. I think it's astute, unfortunately, we have to change that about it, it cannot stay like that, with all that freedom of choice, it's a big big problem. We cannot maintain the traditional Medicare fee-for-service model without feeding the monster than is money-driven medicine (i.e., consumer-driven medicine.) The choice thing has got to be reined in, unless we want to be the only country spending 50-60-70% GDP on medicine. That market is not "willing buyer willing seller each making rational choice with pertinent facts, "basically it's the story of seeking the fountain of youth or perhaps the Dorian Gray story. Perhaps it can be solved with keeping total choice of managing doctor who is paid via salary. The "ownership" there simply has to be passed to people who know something about medicine and don't have any conflict of interest with the wisest choice for the wholistic health of each individual patient.
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:13pm
Not sure why you think we're effete now, ... but anyhow I don't think study of history is going to help decide who of us is right. It's more mundane things like whether and what kinds of government spending people want to cut, and what tax rates they consider appropriate. People seem fine with higher tax rates on the rich, for instance. I think that goes in the fiscal progressive column. People want more government regulation, not less. and so on.
If you start waxing poetic about the first settlers and their wonderful dreams and aspirations while you ignore ... current voters and their policy preferences, you're grasping for straws.
by Obey on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:31pm
And I think you are the one grasping for straws. Emma's post was bringing up the use and meaning of the word socialism in this country and why people react to it the way they do, that to get popular support for something socialistic you have to reference or involve the love of personal property rights somehow. I.E.., Social Security is popular because it was set up like individual accounts that you pay into and get back at retirement time. And that whole "social security" aspect of SSI and SSDI is downplayed, never played up, how some of the money goes to survivors, disabled etc way beyond them or relatives having paid in., because then it would be "socialsim," and less popular.
Look at my link to the discussion where Dan commented, I have a quote from Upton Sinclair there that is verry applicable, starting with The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label...
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:47pm
I agree SS and medicare are popular because people feel they 'own' or 'have earned' them by paying for them. But ... um .... many policies are popular without being sold as relating to property rights. I realize this is an almost insultingly obvious point, but you seem to be missing it, so I thought I-d mention it.
Medicaid, for one. Food stamps. The National Security State. The whole HCR bill - universal health care - was pushed on grounds of basic human rights. Not property. Finreg - pushed on grounds of economic prudence, not property. The stimulus - apart from the tax cut part - was very much not sold on the basis of property rights.
I honestly have no idea what you are driving at.
by Obey on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 11:03pm
It is also interesting to me that you and I do seem to share similiar points of view on many things despite being on opposite sides of so many cultural fault lines. Not that we always agree. :)
More later -- I tried to form some other thoughts but failed. Bedtime.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 12:30am
Nice little cluster bomb following that statement. Made my brain synapses light up like a practically perfect pinball game. D
1) As you say, the appeal of property ownership to our immigrant ancestors is perfectly understandable considering the circumstances they left and those they found here. For example, my own European ancestors are > 90% Scots and most were here prior to 1776 with the last arriving in 1795 having been born on the journey here from Ulster. Their more or less forced emigration from Scotland and Ulster was the result of the Clearances and rack-renting, respectively. These in turn were the result of primogeniture and entail in determining property rights in Britain. Small wonder that property rights were so significant to them and continue to be to us.
2) I don't think most have any problem with socialism. It is the Socialist bogeyman that scares them and he is a just a straw man. Unfortunately, a thoroughly internalized straw bogeyman. I think the word will eventually be redeemed but for now it would be better to counter it with synonyms. There are still quite a few electric cooperatives around here. Although they are mostly name-only cooperatives nowadays, they do send out itty-bitty dividend checks every year or two to keep the illusion and regulations alive.
3) I agree that the biggest unintended consequence of Medicare is our present unsustainable healthcare system. While I do favor a basic single-payer plan, it cannot be just a bigger version of what we already have because what we have is healthcare hell. Been there. Now staying away from it as long as possible. Not a good situation.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:14pm
Got an intriguing anecdotal example for you.
From a recent NYT Home & Garden Section article on a trend of non-profit coops being formed by trailer park residents to buy their land so they no longer have to rent it and be subject to the insecurity of rents being raised or land being sold: At More Mobile-Home Parks, a Greater Sense of Security...March 17, 2011 - By Loren Berlin-
This quote at the end was especially striking:
Now we're somebody--king of their castle, owners of land, lieges, not serfs. Don't miss Aker's picture, she's a stereotyper's dream, and that would certainly not be as a "commie"
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 2:14pm
That is such a sweet-sad story. "Now we're somebody." How thoroughly indoctrinated we all are that our value or worth is contingent on what we do or what we own.
Good for them for joining forces. I really hope someone in the group is a good leader because, well, we've all probably experienced owner associations. Enough said about that. :)
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 2:45pm
Sounds like a progressive to me. They even have a car insurance company named after them.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:52pm
Hi Emma. Hope you are feeling better back wise. Good post. Who said anything about this country made sense...or the people in it for that matter.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:48pm
Hi Chris. Yes better. Still limited movement and stamina.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 12:31am