(no subject)
I've been reading a lot of econ blogs the last few months, a large chunk of which are more like Political blogs focused on Economics. As a result, I've been thinking a lot about politics, economics, and the structure of the social world. Most of it somewhat disheartening and uninsightful.
But the first question is where I fall politically. It's pretty straightforward to say I'm a liberal/libertarian on "social issues." The government should pretty much stay out of sex, drugs, religion, etc. Internationally, I'm pretty hawkish/republican. I think that's a combination of growing up in the Military and impatience. I see a lot of situations that could be better, and I'd rather see them addressed now with force than make them fester and people suffer for another generation of two while capitalism, Hollywood, and the internet work their way in around the edges. I don't think anything has changed much here, my default is still interventionist, if a bit more wary than before the last few wars.
I think most of these are sideshows to the important issues in politics, "fiscal issues." Here, I've become much more muddled in the last decade or so. Probably more correctly, I've developed a hodgepodge of opinions that don't really map to any "side." Back in the day, I would call myself a libertarian fiscally. Hands off, let people do their thing. But every time a I read any statement of libertarian positions nowadays, it sounds like this totally insane freedom uber alles whining. It also seems to totally ignore how much of our wealth is reliant on social structures, money as an abstraction, contract enforcement, clear market failures like externalities and monopolies/cartels, etc. Unfortunately, the only other prominent positions aren't really coherent market opinions. Conservative/liberal just feels like rich vs poor. I tend to come down against the rich more, so I suppose you could call me a liberal. But I'm still anti-union and pro-free market (with some regulation,) so that doesn't quite fit right. I do find it interesting that the positions are still formulated as rich vs poor when most of our redistribution is actually old vs young. And both parties are on the side of the old. I don't want to feel like my political opinions are purely "talking my book" pulling for the side that will give me the most stuff.
So, I'm still left with a mixed bag.
-- I'm generally wary of government intervention in markets. It usually ends up protecting entrenched interests and re-enforcing cartels.
-- At the same time, I think government has a vital role in reigning in well known market failures. Monopolies, cartels (including unions,) pollution and other negative externalities, information asymmetries, etc should all be actively worked against through government intervention.
-- I'm generally in favor of wealth redistribution. Mostly to even out extreme wealth concentration that, IMHO, is usually a result of market failures. But also because the economy is biggest output of our effort as a society. And the direction of the economy is determined not by voting, but by ability to spend money. I think we have a responsibility to keep the economy pointing more towards the average desires of the citizens than the average desires of the wealthy. The only way to do that without interfering with the markets uncanny ability to optimize work is to move more economic votes from the rich to the poor.
I'm not sure whether that clarifies anything for me, but I need to start organizing my thoughts more rather than just rattling them around against each other.
But the first question is where I fall politically. It's pretty straightforward to say I'm a liberal/libertarian on "social issues." The government should pretty much stay out of sex, drugs, religion, etc. Internationally, I'm pretty hawkish/republican. I think that's a combination of growing up in the Military and impatience. I see a lot of situations that could be better, and I'd rather see them addressed now with force than make them fester and people suffer for another generation of two while capitalism, Hollywood, and the internet work their way in around the edges. I don't think anything has changed much here, my default is still interventionist, if a bit more wary than before the last few wars.
I think most of these are sideshows to the important issues in politics, "fiscal issues." Here, I've become much more muddled in the last decade or so. Probably more correctly, I've developed a hodgepodge of opinions that don't really map to any "side." Back in the day, I would call myself a libertarian fiscally. Hands off, let people do their thing. But every time a I read any statement of libertarian positions nowadays, it sounds like this totally insane freedom uber alles whining. It also seems to totally ignore how much of our wealth is reliant on social structures, money as an abstraction, contract enforcement, clear market failures like externalities and monopolies/cartels, etc. Unfortunately, the only other prominent positions aren't really coherent market opinions. Conservative/liberal just feels like rich vs poor. I tend to come down against the rich more, so I suppose you could call me a liberal. But I'm still anti-union and pro-free market (with some regulation,) so that doesn't quite fit right. I do find it interesting that the positions are still formulated as rich vs poor when most of our redistribution is actually old vs young. And both parties are on the side of the old. I don't want to feel like my political opinions are purely "talking my book" pulling for the side that will give me the most stuff.
So, I'm still left with a mixed bag.
-- I'm generally wary of government intervention in markets. It usually ends up protecting entrenched interests and re-enforcing cartels.
-- At the same time, I think government has a vital role in reigning in well known market failures. Monopolies, cartels (including unions,) pollution and other negative externalities, information asymmetries, etc should all be actively worked against through government intervention.
-- I'm generally in favor of wealth redistribution. Mostly to even out extreme wealth concentration that, IMHO, is usually a result of market failures. But also because the economy is biggest output of our effort as a society. And the direction of the economy is determined not by voting, but by ability to spend money. I think we have a responsibility to keep the economy pointing more towards the average desires of the citizens than the average desires of the wealthy. The only way to do that without interfering with the markets uncanny ability to optimize work is to move more economic votes from the rich to the poor.
I'm not sure whether that clarifies anything for me, but I need to start organizing my thoughts more rather than just rattling them around against each other.