Cafe Hayek: Who's the Partisan Hack?

« Last call | Main | Second Amendment Book Bomb» Don Boudreaux

January 12, 2009

Who's the Partisan Hack?

Don Boudreaux

Brad DeLong says that his blog is "Reality-Based." And, indeed, it often offers sound, reasonable, clear-eyed commentary - stuff that I typically find valuable even when I disagree with it; indeed, chiefly when I disagree with it.

But not always. This post borders on being scurrilous -- and certainly crosses the border from reality into paranoid fantasy. DeLong calls a number of economists, including my GMU colleague Richard Wagner, "ethics-free Republican hacks." The offense that sparks this charge is opposition to government "stimulus" of the economy.

The charge is outrageous, for a number of reasons.

First, opposition to government stimulus of the economy is hardly a Republican matter. Suppose the stimulus were to work. Are Republicans less interested in restoring the economy to health than are Democrats? Of course not. In fact, if the stereotype of the GOP is accurate - namely, that the GOP is the party of business - it would appear quite unlikely that any "hacks" for this political party would oppose steps to improve the business climate.

Of course it's possible that the economic theories and ideas motivating a GOP opposition to a stimulus package are mistaken - but being a poor economist is not at all to be an "ethics-free Republican hack."

Second, on the economics of the matter, opposing such a stimulus package -- for macroeconomic reasons or for public-choice reasons or for both reasons -- is hardly a sign of economic dementia. It's possible, again, that the stimulus reflects good economics and that opposition to the stimulus (such as is expressed by my colleague Dick Wagner, by Ed Lopez, and by other economists listed by DeLong) reflects weak economic reasoning. But to treat Keynesian fiscal stimulus as beyond-question appropriate -- to treat economists who reject Keynesian theory and policy as buffoons -- is simply nonsense. Or worse: such treatment seems like the actions of a political hack.

To claim that government cannot spend resources that it doesn't first acquire from the private sector is hardly bizarre. To claim that taking resources from the private sector reduces demands in those industries from which the resources are taken is hardly bizarre. To claim that any economic activity stimulated by increased government spending is offset by economic activity elsewhere slowed by government's need to get the resources it spends is hardly bizarre. Again, such claims might be mistaken -- but what about such claims is so ludicrous as to advertise persons who make them "ethics-free Republican hacks"?

Nothing that I can see.

Third -- and here I can speak only for the handful of persons on DeLong's list of "ethics-free Republican hacks" whom I know personally (such as Dick Wagner and Ed Lopez): many of these scholars would be loathe to identify themselves as Republican. Dick Wagner is one of the least politically partisan people I know. He has nary a kind word for any politician, Democrat or Republican. The idea that Dick Wagner is somehow buttering his biscuits by insincerely writing things that the GOP wants to read, or that he thinks the GOP wants to read, is crazy beyond description.

Fourth, again supposing that fiscal stimulus by government will work and that the economists on DeLong's doo-doo list actually agree (for these suppositions are part of DeLong's premises), it's more likely that such opposition reflects an abundance of ethics rather than an absence of ethics.

It's no ethical challenge to support something that works. It is, however, a real ethical challenge to oppose something that you believe would work. Someone opposed as a matter of principle to government intervention into the economy might be sensible or not; but if that person sticks by his or her principles -- if he or she continues to oppose the intervention on moral grounds, or because of a belief that following what is thought to be a wise rule-of-thumb is best even at the cost of making things worse in the immediate case -- that person is ethics-infused, not ethics-free.

Once again, the economics underlying such principles might be mistaken, or the ethics motivating such opposition might be disagreeable, but the persons standing up for what they believe in are quite the opposite of "ethics-free."

I myself am quite skeptical -- for reasons expressed beautifully by Dick Wagner in the quotation that DeLong features -- of the success of any "stimulus" plan. But even if I were convinced that such stimulus in this case would restore economic health much sooner than it would otherwise be restored, I would still oppose it -- on ethical grounds.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Current Affairs, Economics, Weblogs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e2010536c9350d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's the Partisan Hack?:

Comments

Great post ... but I think your title should say "Who's".

Posted by: Elton Glaser | Jan 12, 2009 2:38:25 PM

Thanks Don. As one of the named "ethics-free Republican hacks," I appreciate this. I also find it amusing beyond belief that I'm accused of being a GOP partisan, for many of the same reasons you said of Dick W..

Posted by: Steve Horwitz | Jan 12, 2009 2:53:24 PM

Great post. DeLong's stock just dropped 10 points in my book.

Posted by: ben | Jan 12, 2009 3:02:18 PM

That was a great article, in terms of providing many persuasive reasons why the "stimulus" will not work as expected. Too bad those reasons are sandwiched between ad-hominem attacks from the blog's owner.

Posted by: Jason | Jan 12, 2009 3:10:21 PM

Probably unclear, I meant DeLong's article, "Stupidest Party AliveTM" At the bottom, he displays several quotes and doesn't bother to refute them other than with a one-liner.

Posted by: Jason | Jan 12, 2009 3:12:19 PM

Here's the thing. From the perspective of an outside observer, it's impossible to tell if the motivations of a tenured professor in a cushy, safe job whose relative power and economic status will increase in a bad economic situation, and whose absolute economic position will likely increase in the long run without the stimulus (while others suffer in the short term) are "ethically infused" or completely self-serving.

Delong, who I personally guess to be a partisan hack, apparently guessed the latter.

Posted by: Bret | Jan 12, 2009 3:12:58 PM

Bret...maybe some of us believe honestly that a stimulus will not work and will in fact be harmful in the long run.

Posted by: dave smith | Jan 12, 2009 3:25:06 PM

I found it a tiny bit ironic that all the people who did not object were on a President's Council of Economic Advisers but it's the (mostly) economists who are surely the politically motivated ones.

Posted by: | Jan 12, 2009 3:32:50 PM

Not much question that DeLong is a partisan hack - did anyone not know that? What's interesting is the possible motivation. Of what value are such attacks? I suspect that they are just a type of procrastination - easier to keep playing such games than to accept responsibility.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 12, 2009 3:40:26 PM

I've always thought that good economic policy was what worked the best, but apparently you have a kind of code as well. Could you post the ethical reasons you would oppose a stimulus even if you did think it would work?

Posted by: Matt | Jan 12, 2009 3:46:26 PM

Welcome to the club Don. I've known Brad DeLong to be a left-wing partisan hack for years.

Posted by: Doug | Jan 12, 2009 3:51:00 PM

Matt, the ethical reason(s) would fall under the "ends don't justify the means."

In other words, just becuase something works, does not mean one does it.

If your child was doing something you did not like, you could stop him/her by beating the snot out of them, but it would not be right to do so.

Likewise, it is not right (assuming a stimulus would work) to stimulate the economy in the short run if that stimulus would harm the long term prospects of living in a free society.

Posted by: dave smith | Jan 12, 2009 3:56:59 PM

dave smith - define "stimulus". To me it's just a fancy word for the government printing money.

Posted by: Doug | Jan 12, 2009 4:07:08 PM

Ok, let's engage in a simple thought experiment. Let's say the "stimulus" program involves taxing business to "stimulate" them. So you take money from a business and give it back to them filtered through D.C. bureaucracy of course. Now, why is that helpful?

Posted by: Doug | Jan 12, 2009 4:08:56 PM

I'm not an economist, but to my simple way of thinking, allowing people to keep more of their own money while cutting government spending would be stimulous enough. The money spent would go towards things people actually need and want. It appears to me that anyone who disagrees with this form of stimulous is more concerned with government losing power than they are with stimulating the economy.

Posted by: Mike Farmer | Jan 12, 2009 4:42:31 PM

What do you call a party that loses to GWB twice?

(Note: I dislike both parties, and find them both inept in their own special ways)

Posted by: Mcwop | Jan 12, 2009 4:51:28 PM

I'm really sick of partisan hacks masquerading as economists.

DeLong, Krugman, the whole Hee-Haw Gang.. but of course there's a long history, Galbraith the Elder (who scrupulously avoided empirical work).. Its just the same crap, lending Phd authority to the machinations of the auto-kelptocracy.

The left (Dems) hasn't even taken the full reigns of power yet, but it's in the process of stealing an election for Franken, has two governors under investigation (Blago & Richardson), one in a peeing contest (Napolitano) and is running a campaign to install somebody in another seat simply because she's somebody's daughter...

"In other words, just becuase something works, does not mean one does it."

This should be inscribed in foreheads. Although now we going to do something in spite of the concern IT PROBABLY WON'T WORK>

Posted by: Superheater | Jan 12, 2009 5:00:32 PM

dave smith wrote: "...maybe some of us believe honestly that a stimulus will not work and will in fact be harmful in the long run."

Given the large number of individuals in the world, that's virtually certain.

What I'm saying is that it's impossible for the outside observer to determine whether the statements are honest or just self-serving if the words and actions happen to match the natural biases one would expect.

Posted by: Bret | Jan 12, 2009 5:14:41 PM

Mike Farmer:
That was one of the most insightful statements i have ever heard from a non-economist. Thanks, it made my day!

Posted by: Jeremy | Jan 12, 2009 5:30:40 PM

It's to be expected that philosophical and theoretical bases influence stances on practical issues. Unfortunately, some people seem to have adopted as a tenet that anyone who does not share their conclusions is dishonest in their arguments, and therefore not worth listening to, or even arguing with.

This post takes Delong to task for that assumption. Let's hope there is crack enough in his worldview to allow it to have an impact.

Posted by: Morgan | Jan 12, 2009 5:39:50 PM

More on DeLong's nature:
http://econlog.econlib.org//archives/2008/10/if_this_is_poli.html

Posted by: Daniel Klein | Jan 12, 2009 5:40:11 PM

I read DeLong's blog occasionally and continue to be struck by the bizarre mix of world-class economics and plain old mean-spiritedness.

Posted by: gator80 | Jan 12, 2009 5:55:01 PM

The Republicans would do very well to start associating themselves with the ethics-free partisan hacks DeLong lists.

Posted by: BoscoH | Jan 12, 2009 6:32:10 PM

"But even if I were convinced that such stimulus in this case would restore economic health much sooner than it would otherwise be restored, I would still oppose it -- on ethical grounds."

A keeper quote indeed as I've come to the conclusion debating here that this is a common stand for many libertarians. Principle matters more then results. It is possible in my opinion that this libertarian ethical position actually over-rides dictum's that would otherwise lead to a more efficient economy. Or stated another way the libertarian seems to put principle ahead of even economic results which is something I never would have understood before making my rounds here.

I know most libertarians don't believe this to be true but it sounds as if the professor and others here HAVE actually stated that if they are wrong economically it wouldn't matter because of their principled position.

I respect it as an ethical stand but find it bizarre because I think it DOES put principle above results. I support it like I would support a pacifist who confronted with force does not defend himself and is killed but stood on a firm ground of ethical principle though I would not take the same position.

Being a pacifist, a communist, an anarchist, or minarchist all can be said to be ethical positions deserving respect but in my opinion have little coherence with human nature and show little evidence of likely social success.

It is my opinion that republicans and libertarians have in common as spite for democracy and people led government preferring ultimately whether they admit it or not rule by a wealthy elite class. IMO that's no form of liberty and far more repressive then a people led government.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 12, 2009 6:42:00 PM

The stereotype is not Republicans as the party of business; it's Republicans as the party of white people who fear minorities, disrupt homosexual families, applaud torture, and reject the scientific method.

Posted by: T L Holaday | Jan 12, 2009 6:48:40 PM

"A keeper quote indeed as I've come to the conclusion debating here that this is a common stand for many libertarians."

Debate? Is that what you do here?

"It is my opinion that republicans and libertarians have in common as spite for democracy"

Oh, well I guess all it takes to be fact is for muirgeo to think it.

Thank God, for you, sir. I'd have no idea what I thought if it weren't for your pearls of wisdom. I'd be utterly lost.

Posted by: MnM | Jan 12, 2009 7:47:21 PM

What muirgeo fears is that in a libertarian society, talent gets rewarded and losers have to work at Wal Mart. He knows that his cushy government job would be eliminated and he'd be stocking shelves at Wal Mart. He's simply looking out for #1. Be easy on him.

Posted by: Doug | Jan 12, 2009 7:50:12 PM

"Principle matters more then results."

The end does not justify the means.

In the case of bad Keynesian economics, the end and the means are both horrible.

However, I am not hopeful that you got it yet. I am willing to bet that you continue to make false utilitarian assertions on this blog.

Posted by: Oil Shock | Jan 12, 2009 7:58:28 PM

Muirgeo,

"...spite for democracy and people led government preferring ultimately whether they admit it or not rule by a wealthy elite class."

There is no such thing as "people led government". Hobbes said that there are only Monarchy, Democracy, and Aristocracy. He was on the right track, but missed the target in assuming that the government of a large group of people could be anything but an aristocracy. The king can't lead alone, and "the people" have nothing to lead. So, we live in an aristocracy - as does everyone. The real question is whether we will hate the people they tell us to hate - or decide for ourselves. For me the answer is easy. I don't hate the wealthy because they haven't done me any wrong. The aristocracy on the other hand...

Posted by: Randy | Jan 12, 2009 8:06:38 PM

LOL! Don,

Man, the world is firmly divided into two camps seperated by a chasm so deep it will never be bridged.

Brad DeLong knows he is lying, but that's not the point, his purpose is to try and destroy all belief in your viewpoints because your beliefs are on the wrong side of the chasm. If he is successful in destroying belief in your veiwpoints he won't be satisfied with that, he will then go on to try to destroy you personally so that you never mount a reasonable threat again.

That is what those on the left do. The evidence is out there over and over for those who look. George Bush hadn't even declared a candidacy but had only beaten Gore in a preelection poll and the MSM and the left set out to destroy him in everyway they could. Sarah Palin brought aggressive challenging vigor to McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base, who now look forward to 2012; even though defeated Palin is still the target of destruction oriented attacks on a daily basis because the left can not afford to leave her as a threat.

You are no different, Don. You, Russ, et. al. represent a threat to the looney left's ideas and you are targeted for destruction. It will be such things as what Brad DeLong has done, you'll be ridiculed in ways and in media that you won't be allowed to rebut, and eventually you'll be shoved off into a corner while the left drives this nation into third world status.

I remember in the early part of the Bush presidency, Virgina Postrel (ex-ditor of Reason mag), in a Reason article pronounced socialism dead. My reaction then was, "Lady, you are pretty damn smart, but you are dead wrong on this issue." Pinochet discovered to his sorrow that if you don't get all the nits and the eggs then you can expect lice again. I know that statement makes me seem ultra-radical but those on the other side of the chasm from the freedom lovers will chop us down, enslave us, and put us in the ground if we stand in the way of their world domination, so I see no reason to be shy or gentle in my own speech. In this case do onto them before they can do onto us.

It has been pronounced, the world is under right wing attack and the Global climate, markets, wee little children, and the College Football playoff system must be saved from the evil capitalist, republican, libertarian, conservative, and free loving right wing loonies.

Brotio is doing a fine job of satirizing the performance of the left, I suggest you feature him and let him run on topics of his choosing at least once a week.

I may not posess a PHD, but I see the world with a clarity that I find that sometimes educated people lose because they can't get their vision back down to the knife fighting level.

Go for DeLong's throat and get him in a forum where you can rip that throat out.

With the lunatics running the aslyum America is going to hurt, only forceful reason can shorten that pain.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 12, 2009 8:28:03 PM

It is very commendable that Prof. Boudreaux would come out with this civil, articulate refutation of Brad's little rant.

Personally I gave up reading Delong, Cowen, et al long ago, though I still listen to quite a bit of "liberal" news and commentary. Something about the smugness of certain people I suppose.

Posted by: RayG01 | Jan 12, 2009 9:03:36 PM

DeLong seems to be angling for Paul Krugman's job. He's relying less on logic and more on invective as his influence rises. Power corrupting, and all that.

Posted by: jb | Jan 12, 2009 9:34:16 PM

Don't worry vidyohs I love to turn on the news and see Libertarian militia forces sweeping across the country especially to the White House and even see Libertarians dragging out all inside to their firing squad. It'd sure beat the regular drivel.

Posted by: Gil | Jan 12, 2009 9:50:10 PM

"Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse."
Prof. Wagner

"Ethics-free Republican hacks" may be an exaggeration and an unfair characterization. I'll take Don's word for it with regard to Dr. Wagner. But to call the proposed stimulus program a "ruse" is to suggest malfeasance and a lack of ethics on the part of the promoters of the coming federal government spending package. That's an exaggeration and an unfair characterization, too. A ruse is what the Bush administration did to justify the U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq. It is better for an academic to stick to her guns and her facts rather than engage in character assasination and to question people's motives. That goes for Profs. Delong and Wagner, as well.

Posted by: TrUmPiT | Jan 12, 2009 11:30:18 PM

If you want to see hack work, read DeLong on Hayek.

Posted by: Greg Ransom | Jan 12, 2009 11:45:35 PM

Thanks, Vidyohs!

Posted by: brotio | Jan 13, 2009 12:22:36 AM

muirgeo, I think you misunderstood. Let me try to explain what I think Don was saying, by using an example.

Suppose there is a problem, in this case it a man who is hungry but has no money because he has no job (he just got out of prison and nobody wants to hire an ex-con). Now, a quick, proven solution would be to take money from the tax-payers, use it to buy food, and give it to the guy. Another solution would be for the government to force an employer to hire him.

A libertarian might agree that these solutions fix the problem quickly, or at least they fix the symptoms of the problem (hunger as a result of being too high a risk for employment). But the libertarian might be against them on ethical grounds. Perhaps he advocates ending the minimum wage so that this guy isn't priced out of the market. In either event, the libertarian is looking at the whole picture, not what would be the speediest solution to a problem.

You could end poverty TOMORROW by having the government write checks to all of the poor, and simply tax the rich to do it. But that would not be an ethical fix, nor would it be a long-term fix. In fact, it would create more problems than it solves.

More to the point, if we are to judge a process by results, then an ethical person would *have* to take ethics into account. Stabbing somebody and stealing their ice cream cone gets me an ice cream cone faster and more efficiently than buying one, but only as long as you have no ethical considerations.

Posted by: Jacob Oost | Jan 13, 2009 1:30:48 AM

In fact, it would not end poverty, but increase it. The writing of checks does not produce wealth, but rather, assigns entitlement to existing wealth.

If the government wrote checks for all the poor, many would quit their jobs and the would be less wealth available tomorrow for them to buy.
People living under the Soviet boot found this out when the government wrote them checks to assign them entitlement their "fair share".

Posted by: Sam Grove | Jan 13, 2009 1:52:30 AM

But even if I were convinced that such stimulus in this case would restore economic health much sooner than it would otherwise be restored, I would still oppose it -- on ethical grounds.

Opposing a "stimulus" on the grounds that it would not restore economic health much sooner than it would otherwise be restored seems very ethical to me. Opposing it on "ethical grounds", believing that it would restore this health much sooner, seems unethical regardless of any words attached to the sentiment.

That said, I oppose the "stimulus" proposed on the grounds that expanded spending directly by the state, on nominally "public goods", seems no sound solution to unemployment under the circumstances, and unlike the Bushniks and their ilk in both parties, I have no interest in expanding this spending, and the volume of Treasury securities, for the sake of expanding it.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 2:20:00 AM

You could end poverty TOMORROW by having the government write checks to all of the poor, and simply tax the rich to do it. But that would not be an ethical fix, nor would it be a long-term fix. In fact, it would create more problems than it solves.

Simply writing checks to the poor by simply taxing the rich presumably creates more problems than it solves, but all of the logic of this statement seems wrapped up in the word "simply".

"The rich", in my lexicon, describes persons entitled to govern substantial productive means, whether they are private property owners (decentralized planners) in a market economy or more central planners in a command economy.

"The poor" describes persons governing few productive means, not even their own labor insofar as it can be more valuable synergistically with other means.

In this sense, the rich and only the rich can make the poor richer by properly organizing the means they govern. The question is how best to organize the governance toward this end.

When the rich organize means simply to expand their own consumption, as when a growing lot of planners commands benefits far exceeding benefits left to others through their planning, altering the established entitlements seems more useful than not.

Declaring the titles of established title holders "ethical", simply on the grounds that they hold them, regardless of any consequences, seems less useful.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 2:49:23 AM

Martin,

"Opposing it on "ethical grounds", believing that it would restore this health much sooner, seems unethical regardless of any words attached to the sentiment."

So many assumptions... What is a "healthy" economy when there is really no such thing as "the economy"? Is harming some to help others ethical? - Or just rationalization? In fact, the more I consider the so-called ethical aspects of this situation, the more I think it is better understood as purely political.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 13, 2009 4:38:51 AM

Martin - if all the rich are illegitimate to you, then launch a Bolshevik revolution and kill the rotten bastards. What are you waiting for?

Posted by: Doug | Jan 13, 2009 5:02:12 AM

The Skeptical Optimist put his two cents at to what is to be stimulated:

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2009/01/stimulate-what.html#comments

Posted by: Gil | Jan 13, 2009 6:27:59 AM

Aw come on Doug. By the same token the question can be reversed to you and if you see the U.S. Federal Government is legitimate. Besides M. Brock seems to suggest that he might believe that some people are only very rich because of special privileges handed down by government and that a true free market would keep profit margins slim through competition and no one would become overly rich (or at least not for long).

Posted by: Gil | Jan 13, 2009 6:31:25 AM

So many assumptions... What is a "healthy" economy when there is really no such thing as "the economy"?

The assumptions are Don's. I replied to his assertion involving these terms.

Is harming some to help others ethical? - Or just rationalization?

Is your threat to harm others crossing some line you draw in the sand without your consent ethical? What else do you call "property"?

In fact, the more I consider the so-called ethical aspects of this situation, the more I think it is better understood as purely political.

I agree that property is all about politics, for better or for worse. I don't agree that you express no politics yourself.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 8:18:40 AM

Martin - if all the rich are illegitimate to you, then launch a Bolshevik revolution and kill the rotten bastards. What are you waiting for?

I never anywhere suggest that all the rich are illegitimate. You fail to distinguish my assertions from your own. I refer explicitly to the central planners of a Bolshevik revolution, who were the rich of their statutory system, and you simply ignore the reference.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 8:22:43 AM

Besides M. Brock seems to suggest that he might believe that some people are only very rich because of special privileges handed down by government ...

Titles to property are lawful entitlements as a matter of fact. "Property" does not mean what you say it means. The word means what legislators and judges say it means, whether you like it or not. The world is not your own proprietarian utopia as a matter of fact. Denying the facts doesn't change them.

... and that a true free market would keep profit margins slim through competition and no one would become overly rich (or at least not for long).

I never anywhere suggest anything about a "true free market", because the construction is nonsense. Markets are free within the bounds of propriety. The "truth" of this "freedom" depends entirely upon the precise meaning of "proper" in this context, and if you will not discuss the meaning of this term precisely, you only play the same game of vague political obfuscation that other politicians play.

Far from supposing that markets keep profit margins low and proprietors not "overly rich", I have explicitly proposed to cut taxes on Bill Gates' multi-billion dollar annual income, drawn almost entirely from his entitlements, practically to nothing, insofar as he reinvests the income rather than personally consuming it.

You, by contrast, simply attribute any thought you like to anyone you like (or dislike) to serve your own purposes, because you have the rhetorical integrity of a politician.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 8:32:32 AM

Martin,

"I don't agree that you express no politics yourself."

Fair enough. I favor a political structure of, by, and for the productive class - and in which those who wish to exploit others, for any reason, can sit and spin. For now, I think I'll refer to it as Neo-Marxism.

As for actually getting there... not so easy. The 20th century Communist experiments failed spectacularly. I think they failed because they tried to incorporate egalitarianism and productarianism, which are incompatible. Its on the front burner - I'll get back to you if anything palatable turns up.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 13, 2009 8:36:49 AM

Don,
A little off topic but maybe you have the answer. Are there historical examples where Keynesian policy worked, say, from the great depression until today?

Posted by: Reuven K | Jan 13, 2009 8:54:37 AM

Fair enough. I favor a political structure of, by, and for the productive class - ...

So does Bill Gates earn his billions by "producing" or not? How about Henry Paulson's hundreds of millions? How about your supportive mother and father? Do they "produce" anything? If you don't answer these questions, I have no idea what you mean by "productive class". It's just another vague political buzzword labeling political comrades.

I'll say that Gates doesn't "produce" billions of dollars worth of software in my way of thinking. He is rather entitled to govern this production, and that's fine with me, but I want entitlements of this kind limited by checks and balances.

I'll further say that your supportive parents do produce something of value. They produce you, and you are thus their property in some measure and ought to owe them reciprocal support. Their support of you is similarly your property, as their support of one another is their property, but writ of their decision to conceive you together. These mutually supportive relationships are the natural foundation of any system of property.

... and in which those who wish to exploit others, for any reason, can sit and spin. For now, I think I'll refer to it as Neo-Marxism.

Marx had some interesting things to say about nineteenth century "Capitalism", but his critique was largely empty of practical solutions to the problems he addressed, and his advocacy of violent revolution, dictatorship and central planning were terribly destructive.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 13, 2009 9:29:42 AM