Political Coalitions, Personal Grievances, and Tribalism

I hope personal animus among members of potential coalitions doesn't lead to squandering chances for big reforms.

***

While the disparate treatment and tactical patience employed against the Bundys and their accomplices in Oregon is painfully unfair and a blatant double standard compared to those employed against racial and criminal justice activists in so many instances, the conviction motivating those in Oregon and shared by their conservative supporters across the country, that mandatory minimum sentences are deeply unjust, may suggest that a/the broad coalition that is necessary to actually effect this reform maybe newly possible.  This potential opportunity not be neglected or dismissed unexplored.

***

Similarly, the fight to protect the shrinking middle class and instead grow it by fighting for the betterment of poor and working-class people maybe bolstered by leveraging the fissures in the conservative and Republican base that,
while always obscured but present, have become starkly clear of late.

The neoliberal view, that people's incomes earned in the market reflects not only their marginal product value but also what they deserve and are nearly on the level of natural fact, and that to facilitate otherwise by affecting either their market or transfer incomes would be to distort the market mechanism to the detriment of both the intended beneficiaries and us all, has long been openly wielded to oppose helping some segments of society economically (and covertly wielded against others for the same purpose).  This deployment of ideologyThe deployment of this ideology has long been successful; the neoliberal view has long enjoyed broad support.

But now that it has been openly turned against has openly been turned against; has been turned openly against many of those who, previously, it had opposed only covertly, and who previously comprised the bulk of its broad support, the dominant neoliberalism may see the struggle against it, to promote the economic interests of those it has stymied, reinvigorated by the support of newfound allies and growth of the opposing coalition.

Desert and Distribution of Income: Agglomeration Effects and Labor Productivity Growth

Who deserves the additional economic value that results from higher labor productivity?  

Let's consider some cases: how about when it results from agglomeration effects?  How about instead when it results from technological capital improvements?

Agglomeration effects occur under conditions of agglomeration, like in cities, wherein more people live in closer proximity to greater numbers of other people than do people who live outside of cities, and increase the productivity of city dwellers.

***

A recent Noah Smith tweet putting forward the proposition that "agglomeration gives windfalls to landlords. Raise efficiency with a Land Value Tax."

So Noah's asserting (likely to enlighteningly start an argument and go through the dialectic) that the premiums to land/real estate values enjoyed by cities’ land-/real estate-owners is a windfall, undeserved by the landowner because they’re not results of the landowner* but of the agglomeration effect--the fact of the property's location in a higher-density area, which is dependent on the actions of many others and not due to just the choices/actions/work/responsibility/accomplishment of the property-owner himself--and therefore cities’ land-/real estate-values ought to be, or are justifiably, taxed more than those outside of cities.

Interesting enough, and seems to accord with my tentative general principle of trying to accord people's compensation with their work/effort/labor. 

***

Let’s apply this same logic now to wages.  Some argue that the fact that wage growth has lagged behind labor productivity growth in recent decades means that wage-earners have received less than they deserve and that income that has been accruing to the owners of capital is undeserved by them and represents income that rightfully belongs to workers.  

However, to the extent that the growth in labor productivity is the result of capital investment, and not, say, more education, training, and experience of the workforce, the workforce did nothing to earn the additional income the increased productivity enabled, and so does not deserve it.

***

Therefore, it seems to me that one cannot simultaneously hold that the premium derived from agglomeration effects are not deserved by urban real estate-owners and that the additional income derived from labor’s increased productivity is deserved by labor.

----------

*Of course, this only holds perfectly/fully if the agglomeration effects happened entirely since the real estate was purchased by the landowner; otherwise, he paid for the agglomeration effect’s premium on the real estate’s value by paying a higher price for the real estate when he bought it.  Rather than all or nothing either way, it’s most likely that some of the premium from the agglomeration effect was paid for by the real estate-owner and some was not, provided how much the agglomeration effect grew, i.e. how much the city (and therefore its residents’ productivity) grew since the time of purchase.  The longer ago the real estate-owner’s purchase (assuming continuing agglomeration and productivity growth), the less the value premium was paid for; the more recent the real estate-owner’s purchase (similarly assuming continuing agglomeration and productivity growth), the more the value premium was paid for.

"Kansas and Missouri fight for corporate investment and jobs"

2 states in a tug-of-war for workers that's costing millions

Perfect example of a collective action problem.  

(In this case) the dynamic forces them both/each to expend a lot of resources, which each only negate the other's; thus, both sides incur substantial cost(s) while providing basically no net gain.  This outcome is suboptimal for both as there are better possible outcomes for both sides, indeed a single alternate possible outcome that would be better for both sides.    

But if such a universal improvement, a pareto improvement in other words, is possible, then how both sides still experiencing this avoidable problem?

But both sides are also essentially forced into it; it's the rational thing to do.  After all, if they don't do it but the either side does, then they'll lose out even more.  Only if both sides stop doing it is the outcome better for both.  Thus, some agreement and coordination, presumably with mutually-acceptable/accepted enforcement provisions/measures in case of cheating/going back on,--in other words, law--is necessary for the best possible outcome in these kinds of cases.

***

As a typical/paradigmatic case/example of a common collective action problem, this example is important because it may be able to illustrate to those not otherwise sympathetic to centralization and government action/intervention/activism the soundness of the deductive case for it's being optimal policy in some circumstances, namely when the conditions sufficient for a collective action problem are present and the benefits yielded justify the costs incurred (and also maybe necessary is that no other pathology of government is worse than freedom's/market's pathology in this case/area).  

***

Hopefully states and localities can recognize this problem and band together resolved not to compete with other states and localities for economic activity by bidding with taxpayer money.  If federal legislation is not possible, then states should band together in the model of Common Core or National Popular Vote plan.  

***

Similarly, but more controversially, the same collective action problem that applies to individual states in the whole country also applies to individual countries in the whole world.  For this reason (among many others), it seems necessary that some level of world government will be necessary.  

In the same way that individuals voluntarily surrender some rights and assume some responsibilities in order to live in society, and just also as states voluntarily surrender some rights (nuclear non-proliferation for instance, or use of land mines) and assume responsibilities (to defend other states) in order to enter treaties with other states, gaining alliances and allies, states will, at least will need to, establish a common world government.

Too many collective action problems otherwise: impossibility of universal currency devaluation, Piketty on a global wealth tax, financial regulation, etc.

The process of globalization is a one-time only phenomenon, though of course long and difficult and must be managed right.  But the costs are mostly related to the process (as in economic, distributive costs, as there are arguments for other social and cultural costs) and not the outcome, so the economic benefits of the hopefully-long-lived outcome likely outweigh the costs of the temporary process.  

***

This phenomenon should also be taken into account when evaluating the economic and employment performance of different states, for the purpose of discovering/learning what policy should be undertaken at the federal level to boost employment or economic performance otherwise, or adjudicating between which candidates for federal office are better for the economy and employment than others' (which now sounds similar, even identical to the last question).

Abortion Regulation: From Illegal to Legal... to Universal?

I've just come to the conclusion that universal access to abortion is a legal political imperative. 

If we base our right to abortion on the right to bodily-autonomy, then abortion should be just as free and universally accessible as law enforcement and judicial services. 

Could this be right?  

Is the logic?  Should we reexamine the premise?

Conservatives' and Liberals' Moral Psychology

This is an old column but I came across when someone else things to it as part of a response to one of his current columns on ideological diversity.  It discusses how liberals give us to charity than conservatives and the implications of that, in the context of the public policy debate in which Liberals are widely agreed to be more generous public spending/public resources/public funds/the budget to the downtrodden.  

I've read/heard elsewhere that this finding disappears when you control for religion, so it's religion and not conservatism that makes people more charitable, and it's in religion and not liberalism that makes them less so. (check to see if this is in the column, and check to see if it's true)

More recently, it's been discussed some from the unearthing of a 1981 quote from Bernie Sanders that he does not believe in charity.

This might seem to accord with my analysis on liberals and conservatives and their differences on collective action problems: liberals favor coordinated solutions to collection action problems and conservatives don't, in general. 

Maybe this is because liberals overestimate/overprotect free-riding/action of unenlightened self interest, so they don't believe uncoordinated action can solve it, and maybe it's because liberals see themselves and those around them, who are also highly likely to be liberals, free-ride/act of unenlightened self-interest frequently/most of the time, i.e. that liberals free-ride/act on it unenlightened self-interest more than liberals do.

Maybe because they're less generous slash more vicious/less virtuous, or maybe it's because they have a different technical/positive view/belief, i.e. they believe and uncoordinated solution is less likely to happen, and are just taking the rational action rashly taking the action consistent with that belief.

Test both of those 

Maybe liberals just think that they don't have to do it, and it will even get done more efficiently by government.

The pros think they just should not have to do it.

Are they doing it out of defensive free-riding or initial free-riding?

Bleeding Heart Tightwads - NYTimes.com

Who's Not Paying Their Fair Share of Taxes, the Poor or the Rich?

Both many liberals and many conservatives believe that the tax code is unfair, with some not paying their fair share and others expropriated for too much. But of course, they disagree on who's who, with liberals viewing the tax code skewed toward the rich and conservatives viewing it as skewed toward the poor. Each camp has a sort of simple "just look out the window" common sense on its side: liberals can appeal to the fact that rich folks have all that money to enjoy a higher standard of living to argue that the system can't be tilted toward the poor and against the rich (or if it is, it's doing a terribly ineffective job), and conservatives can point to budget figures of the costs of different programs and tax payments.

Intuitively, I'm firmly in the liberal camp on this one; I mean, if the system is so biased in favor of the poor and against the rich, then why does everyone strive for wealth and to avoid poverty? But the conservative reasoning is so deceptively simple and persuasive that a lot of people believe it, so a more specific argument would be very helpful to cast doubt upon it and back up the liberal intuition. So let's examine this conservative view in depth and see where it takes us.

Progressive Taxation, Arbitrariness, and Justice

I'm glad that someone like Mike Konczal is analyzing the claim that our U.S. system of taxation is already very progressive by the standards of international developed economies.  (Thanks for the notice, Andrew.) In this post, he demonstrates the serious flaw in some (easily and commonly cited) measures of tax progressivity, specifically those that are based on the share of total tax revenue paid by certain economic segments of the population without also addressing their shares of national income and wealth. I wanted to highlight his post because he point can't be made enough, and because it reminded me of a normative line of thought I've been meaning to articulate for a while.

Is the Fight Against Inequality or Poverty?

As the Iron Lady did in very quotable fashion, many conservatives today continue to accuse liberals of fetishizing economic equality to the point of willingness to sacrifice the living standards of all, including the poor, to promote it. As Margaret Thatcher put the charge, liberals "would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich".

This accusation made towards liberals is false almost without exception. For just one example, here's Matt Yglesias refusing to trade living standards for equality. In this case, even though economic recessions may reduce income inequality by cutting the incomes of the rich more than those of the poor, Yglesias nevertheless opposes recessions and so declines the living-standards-for-equality trade because absolute living standards for all outweighs income equality.

Yet, many liberals have indeed claimed the struggle against economic inequality as their own. How ought their position be interpreted? While there might be other valid reasons to oppose inequality, the most undeniable reason to do so, and thus the most effective grounds on which to make the case, is that inequality implies inadequate living standards and poverty that are avoidable.