I think it's slightly muddled, just like this response!
I suppose the first problem I see is that you state no one can agree about numbers (or even methodology for measurement/analysis) but then pick 'prosperity' and sort of blend it with 'happiness'. At that point it's a fait accompli to dismantle something so vague and subjective. I'm sure someone will reply that we have fairly rigorous measurements like household debt to GDP, which is far better than some relationship to the CPI, etc. On the other hand even in more scholarly discussions you get stuff like this:
I find it interesting, but also comical at times. Like Kant.
I think there's also some confusion where the recommendations of macro-economists turns into a legislative policy. It's slightly problematic (this is the polite way of saying disingenuous I guess) to blame the former for the way the latter interprets and manipulates things and winds up writing some totally retarded law. The point that 'stimulus' often comes across to mean 'increase consumption in the short-term so we can get back to our unsustainable economy which we measure using this magical number' is well-taken of course, but there's also a panoply of responses to that from economists and policy makers that 'this recent intiative was supposed to be about infrastructure', etc., which should fall under GROW. When the rubber hits the K-street road, though...
Tangent: someone made the point the other day that the lower/middle class 'tax relief' was resulting in local municipalities raising fees for a broad array of services that were previously funded through tax revenue. Does the 'laissez faire' school consider this good insofar as it reduces the distance between collection and expenditure ('locality')? More closely mimics private sector producer/consumer models? Can all the hikers and hunters support the parks and rec services? Tragedy of the commons?
I suppose the first problem I see is that you state no one can agree about numbers (or even methodology for measurement/analysis) but then pick 'prosperity' and sort of blend it with 'happiness'. At that point it's a fait accompli to dismantle something so vague and subjective. I'm sure someone will reply that we have fairly rigorous measurements like household debt to GDP, which is far better than some relationship to the CPI, etc. On the other hand even in more scholarly discussions you get stuff like this:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/03/the_great_multi.html
I find it interesting, but also comical at times. Like Kant.
I think there's also some confusion where the recommendations of macro-economists turns into a legislative policy. It's slightly problematic (this is the polite way of saying disingenuous I guess) to blame the former for the way the latter interprets and manipulates things and winds up writing some totally retarded law. The point that 'stimulus' often comes across to mean 'increase consumption in the short-term so we can get back to our unsustainable economy which we measure using this magical number' is well-taken of course, but there's also a panoply of responses to that from economists and policy makers that 'this recent intiative was supposed to be about infrastructure', etc., which should fall under GROW. When the rubber hits the K-street road, though...
Tangent: someone made the point the other day that the lower/middle class 'tax relief' was resulting in local municipalities raising fees for a broad array of services that were previously funded through tax revenue. Does the 'laissez faire' school consider this good insofar as it reduces the distance between collection and expenditure ('locality')? More closely mimics private sector producer/consumer models? Can all the hikers and hunters support the parks and rec services? Tragedy of the commons?
Reply
Leave a comment