"But is this discontent over our relative economic position, rather than our absolute one, so bad? Is it not what drives the capitalistic system?"

It's only bad when taken to the extreme, just like anything else.

When the Bible talks about being content in whatever state we're in, it's not limited to just those instances in which we have enough. Paul says, "I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need." (Phil. 4:12, NASB). On the other hand, it also cautions us against coveting things that aren't ours.

There would be no improvement without the "discontent" you speak of, but too much of anything - even good things - can be as destructive as not enough.

I grabbed this from a guy who is doing a film about Mr. Rogers -

"Mr. Rogers says, 'Yunno what? Before we do that, can I say one more thing?'

'How many clothes can you wear? How many cars can you drive? How big of a shelter do you really need? Some people get so caught up in the trappings of life. At least I feel that they lose what is real. And so my desire is to help children realize that deep and simple are far, far more important than shallow and complicated and fancy.'"

Not too off-topic, I hope, but certainly part of the general thread..... :)

I'll try and get past the soft red-baiting and add some substance to this:

Economic well being does not depend on absolute wealth in their eyes. These leftists would prefer a world in which everyone earned $10,000 a year over one in which half earned $20,000 and the other half earned $80,000.

That's not exactly what I said. Although I never said so explicitly (there was no appropriate place to put it), there is obviously an economic misery floor/ceiling in terms of absolute deliverables of certain material comforts (and some social ones) such as food, water, clothing, shelter, safety, etc. I want to make it absolutely, 100% clear, that neither I nor anyone else I can think of thinks that a population of starving, diseased, shivering humans would poll as "happy" just so long as each and every one of them is in the same condition.

And I never said, and don't know why I would, that I would "prefer a world in which everyone earnd $10,000 a year ... blah blah blah." The world I prefer is a utilitarian world that delivers the most happiness to the greatest number of people. If you're going to put words in my mouth, I'd prefer it if they were at least my words.

That said, it seems to me the proper debate is to either accept my premise -- that the goal of human progress is to increase human happiness (utilitarianism), reject that premise and offer another goal of human progress, or reject the entire notion of progress whatsoever. I understand and can respect (while not agreeing with) the latter two.

Now if you accept my premise, I ask that you then engage in a discussion of why happiness is not a relative function (and I understand that notions of relativity, etc. are the domain of liberal socialists such as myself and that the right tends to be more comfortable with a black/white (and absolute) world) but rather an absolute function.

And I'll wager that probably a not inconsiderable number of people making minimum-wage in our country sometimes reflect that, well it could be worse, they could be eating dirt in Somalia and find happiness in that fact.

But I think it more likely that it is human nature not to find solace in "there but by the grace of God, go I" but rather "Man, that dude's got some bling, why can't I have it, too?"

Finally, before I get jumped on about the last statement, that was not a statement of personal moral preference, I'm not espousing greed, I'm not advocating for resentment. I'm simply giving my take on the human condition and the conditions necessary for happiness.

I think that experience supports my position, that happiness is a relative function. But I'm happy to entertain alternate theories.

Finally (I know I've already said that) do not take my position of happiness being relative to mean that the guy making $100,000 a year in a society of $50,000-a-year-earners isn't happy because he's outside the relative norm.

There is something different about the rich, after all, they're rich -- and happy because of it. Which is why we see such unending advocacy for the attainment and maintenance of very high relative worths. Not many of us will attain it, but those that do are very happy to have done so.

Even if they make everyone else miserable in the process.

greg

Unhappiness is caused because we cling to an image of an imaginary perfect world that this world can never live up to. Either we want things we don't have or we want the things we do have to last forever, but there is always more to want and nothing lasts forever so we are always inevitably caught in a cycle of happiness and disappointment.

Furthermore, people get used to, and bored with, things. Obviously the effects of things like social equality change with the expectations of people and as people start to forget it was any other way.

Forgive me:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Nick:

:) Someone *would* have to bring "Wall Street" into this.....

Would everybody in the US making $10,000 make me happy? Uh, not on your life.

What would make this "leftist" happy is a world where there were social codes limiting economic inequality, where as JK Galbraith said, ''management does not go out ruthlessly to reward itself -- a sound management is expected to exercise restraint,'" where greed ISN'T good, where anything corporate doesn't go, and where gov't serves the interest of the privileged AND me.

Greg,
You mentioned Red-baiting but you indulge in "greed-baiting".

Wanting more is not always about greed you know. A good portion of it comes from a desire for security - how many rich people were stuck in New Orleans when they flood hit?

You never know when you are going to get caught in some shit a hurricane, cancer, global warming, becoming a random victim of identity theft - life can get you. In all cases the fact is that a person who had previously acquired more than they need will be in a much better spot than a person who merely got-by with only what they had always thought they needed.

Like I said before, the world is always changing. The idea of progress is fine but the idea that there is smoe fixed global optimum that is best for all time is a mirage. The "best" society will change as the circumstances and people change.

"In all cases the fact is that a person who had previously acquired more than they need will be in a much better spot than a person who merely got-by with only what they had always thought they needed."

Um, not in China in 1949 or Russia in 1917 ... not to mention the subtler objections that Greg will point out (that the person who has lost a million dollars and has nothing will probably feel the loss more keenly than the person who loses his entire fortune of one dollar).

I don't think I'm indulging in "greed-baiting" and I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with "wanting more." Indeed, my entire philosophy, like that of every liberal, is a philosophy of progress -- the idea that no matter what, no matter how good, the state of things today, tomorrow can be even better. And if it doesn't turn out that way, we can work to get it fixed.

The key word there is "we." "We" as in friends, family, tribe, nation, civilization. A whole greater than the sum of its parts. We humans build governments and civilizations in order to gain security and happiness greater than we can accomplish individually.

If you're compelled to "more" because you enjoy broadening your mind, because you want to contribute to human progress, because you think that you, your family, your community, and your nation can have "more" then that's not greed, that's great.

On the other hand, if you're compelled to "more" because you're insecure then that is a failure of society, and something that can, and should, be fixed.

If for no other reason than when the shit really hits the fan, because the society you could not trust to provide your security has disintegrated, that's precisely when the value of all the "more" you've stockpiled disappears overnight.

Think of the rugged individualist southerner who, when the civil war clouds were gathering, accumulated all he could in confederate scrip and downtown Atlanta real estate.

The idea of progress is fine but the idea that there is smoe fixed global optimum that is best for all time is a mirage.

I've certainly never argued that there is some kind of "global optimum." In fact I've consistently argued exactly the opposite -- that progress is possible, that improving the human condition is a task we should set to work at each and every day.

And doing that doesn't mean the removal of social status, it doesn't mean removing incentives to work, or any of the other hobgoblins the right tends to throw out whenever the Randian ideal of the rugged individualist, who needs no one and thus needs not give to any one, is unmasked.

Even Mill, when he was espousing the stationary economic state contra capitalism (an economic state in which labor (population) and capital (resources) were fixed, instead of assuming to relentlessly increase exponentially) specifically addressed the issues of progress and drive.

These are not contradictory conditions but rather, complimentary ones.

greg

not to mention the subtler objections that Greg will point out (that the person who has lost a million dollars and has nothing will probably feel the loss more keenly than the person who loses his entire fortune of one dollar).

Yes, indeed (see my above about the individualistic southerner who chose not to invest in social security (not that kind, guys) but rather decided to take matters into his own hands.

Paul's point brings it home as to why, for instance, a progressive taxation instead of a flat or regressive system (as some on the right are now arguing is a "fair" tax, my gosh) is also a moral taxation system.

The more you have to lose, the more interested you are in having mechanisms in place to guard against loss. And those mechanisms are by nature, social mechanisms. I'm talkin' gubbernmint.

You know, like deposit insurance, securities regulation, enforcement of contract, anti-trust legislation, etc. And those things cost money.

Hence, as Adam Smith said: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state"

That old commie income redistribunist (I made up that word), Adam Smith.

greg

There may be some truth in what you and others write, but on the other hand, I work with a significant number of people who are worried about where they are going to get the money to pay for their meds or for the tests their doctors want them to have.

Since Christianity doesn't significantly affect how most Americans either see themselves or how they act, what the Bible teaches about community doesn't reach the mindset of most people.

On the one hand, there is truth to the "positioning" idea, but on the other hand, there is way too much of an unfeeling "let them eat cake" attitude toward those who make less and struggle to make ends meet. That they make more than those in almost all other countries seems rather beside the point to me.

Capitalism is the best system there is, but that doesn't mean that it is an easy fit with Christianity.

Greg,

1) Perhaps my choice of language made me sound like a Randian "rigged individualist" but I am certainly not. Obviously there are limits to the security that wealth can provide, and I never meant to imply that one can attain perfect security through the acquisition of material things.
The simple reason that so many poor black people got flooded is that they could not afford to leave and stay in a hotel indefinitely. The people who had that ability and choose to leave before the hurricane were not immune from loss but were at least able to avoid the terrible conditions that those stuck behind got stuck with. Of course, there were those with money who stayed behind and their money wasn't much use.
So, to be clear, I am NOT talking about stockpiling for armaggedon. I am talking about the fact that money gives you more avenues and options to get the hell out of dodge before that happens. But lets get back to practical things - like cancer in the family, or being able to keep your mother out of a crappy nursing home.

I thought I saw,in your comments, a particular focus on "greed" (I agree with your definition) as a default assumption for the desire to acquire more than one needs. Perhaps this doesn't describe you, and I don't want to beatup a strawman, but I am very accustomed to seeing believers in leftwing economic systems implicitly assume that the greed of individuals is the number one reason that people fail to work together efficiently for the "common good". Witness the way so many discussions of socialism invariably degenerate into arguments over the place of "greed" in "human nature" as opposed to more substantial and practical issues. In such cases greed is used as a scapegoat to avoid dealing with the limits of cooperation unrelated to greed (like the idea that two utterly selfless people who disgree on how to help people might be unable to work together for the 'common good').

"Paul's point brings it home as to why, for instance, a progressive taxation instead of a flat or regressive system is also a moral taxation system."

And for those unmoved by appeals to morality one can always point out that a regressive tax systems always collapse because you cant get blood from a stone. Regressive Taxation was the norm for most of the dark & medieval ages and governments were always chronically short of cash because the nobles were excempt and the peasants were, well, poor-ass peasants.

r4d20,

I guess the issue of "greed" just isn't that interesting for me, mostly because I am resigned to accept that there is such a thing as "human nature" and that "greed" is a part of that nature, a part that can't simply be legislated out.

Not that I would necessarily want it to be, even if it could. I don't believe in a free lunch and I don't believe you can get rid of the "bad" part of greed (that part that expropriates from others what is not rightfully yours) without losing all or some of the "good" part (that part that compells individuals to higher levels of individual accomplishment, raising the level of collective happiness in the process).

As for those of us that believe in a "leftwing economic system" (a cohort that, I think, includes Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, and Jesus Christ for starters), I think the necessary recognition is that unbridled "bad" greed is fundamentally unsustainable and deleterious not only to society but to the individual practicing it, in the same way that cancer, by killing the host, is ultimately deleterious to cancerous cells.

My economic and government philosophy can be summed up most succinctly as what I call the "Goldilocks" approach. In short, there really is such as thing as too much, too little, and "just right."

There can be too much regulation, just as too little. There can be too much taxation, just as too little. There can be too much emphasis on collective action, or individualism, or too little. And for all of those things there is an optimum (for happiness) level of "just right."

What that level of "just right" is neither I nor anyone else can say with certainty. But that doesn't mean that, just because it may appear "subjective," that we shouldn't try anyways. And it means that I thoroughly reject the claims of the absolutists, whether they be libertarian anar/minarchists or communistic collectivists. Somewhere between the two is the "just right" money shot.

So, how do we find that? I think largely empirically -- the future is the past you've not bothered to study. Maybe the United States was drifting too far to the left between the 1950s-1970s (Eisenhower and his 90+% maximum marginal income tax would cause coronaries at the Heritage Foundation today) but I think we've drifted too far to the right from 1980-present (Bill Clinton and his support of NAFTA caused coronaries among my colleagues).

And I base that on empirical evidence -- looking backwards. I don't see the past ten, twenty, or thirty years as years in which we've managed to progress the human state of happiness forward, much. I see declining incomes for the majority of our population, I see declining resources per capita, I see all kinds of storm clouds all of which say, to me, "Caution: ahead on this course lies great trouble."

greg

As for those of us that believe in a "leftwing economic system" (a cohort that, I think, includes Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, and Jesus Christ for starters)

You're not one of those people confusing voluntary private charity (which Jesus promoted) with involuntary taxpayer subsidy of a) whomever the government says is needy and b) the vast bureaucracies required to manage such "redistribution" schemes (which Jesus did not), are you?

Considering that Mill was a utilitarian (at least for a time), I can see why he's on the list. But refresh me on why Adam Smith is mentioned.

I'll tell you, what: I'll respond to your question if you can rephrase it without the histrionics.

Unless you're willing to first agree with me that 75 cents on every federal tax dollar that I pay goes to the military-industrial-complex and interest payments on a debt that the most affluent in our society refuse to pay their part of, prefering instead to pass it onto a generation yet born.

greg

What histrionics?

75 cents on every federal tax dollar

The budget is greater than tax revenues, so that's a meaningless figure.

Thus sayeth the Government Printing Office (PDF file) - following data from Table 3.1, page 52

On-budget items only:

Total Federal outlays - $1.655 trillion
DOD: $348 billion
Interest: $248 billion
DOD + Int = 36.0% of budget

Includes off-budget items:
Total Federal outlays - $2.010 trillion
DOD: $348 billion
Interest: $171 billion
DOD + Int = 25.8% of budget

The 2005 estimate of total Federal receipts is $2.036 trillion (Table 1.1, page 22), and 75% of that is $1.527 trillion, so your math is way off.

Back to my original question...most of Jesus' teachings were apolitical in nature. The only political messages were a) don't steal, and b) follow the rule of law - pay Caesar his lawfully just compensation (Mark 12:17), don't abuse eminent domain to scarf up widow's houses (Mark 12:40). Are there any political messages I missed?

And what of Adam Smith is consistent with liberal economics? We can certainly rule our protectionism, which is found on both left and right and which Smith opposed.

Couple, well three, problems with your numbers:

1. I said "75% of every federal dollar that I PAY" which. to me, implies that outlay percentages should be expressed as a percentage of federal tax receipts, not federal expenditures. The reason should be clear (i.e. the fed is largely running not on tax receipts, but on borrowed money).

2. There are "military" expenses that are not internalized to the DoD budget (more below) that should be counted.

3. Your debt figure is for "net" debt, which is an accounting sleight-of-hand that offsets the debt with money made from interest (in the trust funds, etc.) and greatly distorts the debt picture

4. Your figures are for 2002, I prefer to use more contemporary numbers. For that I used 2005 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf

Now,

2005 figures:

Federal on-budget receipts from individual & corporate income taxes + excise taxes: $1.278 trillion (p. 30)

National Defense: $495 billion (p. 54)
Veteran's Benefits: $70 billion (p. 54)
Debt service: $352 billion (p. 142)
Military retirement: $39b (p. 227)

Total expenditures: $956 billion

Expenditures as % of tax receipts: 74.8%

I'll get back to you on the other stuff later, right now gotta walk the dogs, load a harpsichord into the truck, and mow the lawn.

greg

Greg,
Perhaps we mean different things by "left-wing economic system", or perhaps I should have been more specific - I meant the family of anti-capitalist systems like anarchism, communism, parecon, and other forms predicated on absolute social control of both the means and methods of production and distribution.
In retrospect it doesn't sound like you are a serious "believer" in any of these so I'll try not to waste your time by dwelling on them.

"I think we've drifted too far to the right from 1980-present .... Caution: ahead on this course lies great trouble."

I kind of agree with you, but it depends on what you mean by "drifting right". If you mean we have been drifting towards the capitalist ideal often espoused by "rightwing" economists, then I disagree, but if you mean we have drifted towards a system where government interferes with the market so as to funnel more money to the wealthy while refusing to interefere to funnel money to the poor, then I agree completely.

I'm not a libertarian purist, but I definitely think that this government has often paid the "free market" lip service while supporting policies designed to institutionalise competitive advantage for the current market leaders (and political donars). For example, this administration handed out no-bid contracts left and right during the run-up to Iraq even in cases where there was no clear reason why it had to be no-bid. While there is a logic to the existence and use of "no-bid" contracts, one would think that a believer in the "free market" would tend to believe in the value of competition and use them sparingly, but this Admin made heavy use of them for many major contracts even when the circumstances didn't seem to make it necessary. Unsuprisingly large numbers of awards went to companies connected to the Admin.

Is a drift to "the right"? I agree its a drift to the cultural right which takes an almost Calvinist view of wealth - where being rich is a priori a sign or moral virture and being poor is a priori a sign of moral failing. But its NOT a drift to the traditional economic right - people like A. Swift and F. Hayek - who were absolutely opposed to the idea of government intereference to maintain the privledge of the rich.

1. I could complain that Medicare + income security + debt (your figure) sucks up 78% of my tax dollars. A lot of combinations woudl fall around that percentage figure. Itemized budget expenses should be understood as a percentage of the budget, not of receipts. Besides, to say that "the fed is largely running not on tax receipts, but on borrowed money" ignores the fact that defense and military benefits are part of the Fed.

2. One could argue that VA benefits should be classified with similar civilian programs because soldiers access the VA instead of its civilian counterparts. If military retirement expense belongs with the DOD budget, then each branch of the bureaucracy must include in its budget its share of civilian retirement expense.

3. True. The trust funds should be in the revenues portion of the budget, not in the expenses section. Both income and expenses are bigger than reported. I am not an accountant but I do know what income and expense statements look like. At least it doesn't affect the calculation of the deficit.

4. My mistake - I was looking at the far left column (2002) instead of the 2005 estimate column. Revisions, using the FY2007 chart:

On-budget:
Total Federal outlays - $2.070 trillion
DOD: $496 billion
Interest: $276 billion
DOD + Int = 37.3% of budget

On-budget II:
Total Federal outlays - $2.070 trillion
DOD: $496 billion
Interest, debt securities only: $352 billion
DOD + Int = 40.9% of budget

On-budget + off-budget:
Total Federal outlays - $2.472 trillion
DOD: $496 billion
Interest: $184 billion
DOD + Int = 27.5% of budget

The DOD budget is abnormally high because it's wartime. Fortunately it's not at WWII proportions. It will go down when we finish the job of stabilizing Iraq ans Afghanistan. If we're smart, when that time comes we'll have a modest military presence there that can serve in a reserve capacity to insure against the next Saddam wannabe who wants to stage a coup. We're still in Okinawa, after all.

I do wonder where in our budget the cost of building civilian infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan is being categorized...

Oops, the "On-budget II" revision should set total outlays at $2.146 trillion, since the on-budget interest income is treated as income and not as a debit to the outlays sum. DOD + interest comes to 39.5% of budget.

I meant the family of anti-capitalist systems like anarchism, communism, parecon, and other forms predicated on absolute social control of both the means and methods of production and distribution.

Well I think it's a little unfair to use that cohort to characterize "left wing" economic systems. After-all, I don't generically think of "right wing" economic systems as being the anti-capitalist family of fascism (corporatism), feudalism, anarchism (minarchism), theocracy, and other arrangements predicated on absolute social control of both the means and methods of production and distribution.

Capitalism, as far as I can tell, is a left-wing economic system, coming as it did out of the Enlightenment (which shook off the old "right wing" systems) and being formed and defined by great liberal economists like Smith, Pareto, Mill, and Ricardo.

I'm about as liberal as they get, I'm an atheist, a secular humanist, and a "leftist" all rolled up in one. But I also believe, deeply, in markets and their ability to set prices and allocate resources effectively -- even if I don't believe they're infallible in that regard and if I believe that an appropriate set of rules, standards, and oversight is necessary for any capitalist system to be sustainable.

The DOD budget is abnormally high because it's wartime.

It's not that high in context and, I believe, most of the "war" expenditures are coming as supplemental emergency spending bills, and not internalized in the base DoD budget.

Fortunately it's not at WWII proportions.

Or unfortunately because if it were the crappy economy might get the great Keynesian stimulus it needs and we might engage in rebuilding some manufacturing capability here.

It will go down when we finish the job of stabilizing Iraq ans Afghanistan.

Which should happen just as soon as we win the other "war," the "war on drugs." Or poverty, or any of the other wars we're waging, like terrorism, that are wars against concepts, not nations.

I could complain that Medicare + income security

Except that neither medicare nor income (social) security are on-budget items, and aren't paid for out of your federal income taxes. That and the fact that SSA (currently) runs a substantial surplus (which helps fund the federal government by giving the feds someone to borrow from).

greg

Medicare is officially on-budget, according to the official budget (p. 54). And it is larger than every other item except for SocSec (which is mostly off-budget), DOD, income security, and the interest on the debt.

Capitalism, as far as I can tell, is a left-wing economic system, coming as it did out of the Enlightenment

On economic policy, the laissez-faire theorists of the Enlightenment have little in common with the modern Left; the latter leans heavily toward social democracy, socialism, and/or other isms that restrict markets with the intent of favoring the "little guy." Is Robert Reich in the same class with Adam Smith?

Medicare is officially on-budget, according to the official budget (p. 54).

Mea culpa. However it is taxed separately (with Social Security) from income tax.

the laissez-faire theorists of the Enlightenment have little in common with the modern Left;

Laissez-faire wasn't a part of Enlightenment economic thinking, certainly not Smith -- who favored productive tariffs, regulations on the invisible hand, worker protection, and redistribution of rents. I attribute laissez-faire more to the neoclassical Austrian school.

Sure, Smith made arguments for less government intervention in the economy but he never argued for no intervention and in several places in Wealth of Nations makes direct reference to the need for regulation (such as I outlined above).

Is Robert Reich in the same class with Adam Smith?

I doubt it, but I also don't think Robert Reich's views on markets, regulation, etc. are materially different from Smith's.

greg

Wikipedia associates Adam Smith with laissez-faire.

The term itself was coined by the Physiocrats, a group of Enlightenment thinkers that included names such as Richard Cantillon, Francois Quesnay, and Jean Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay. The article cites two men their influenced:

Adam Smith, who visited France as a tutor and mentor to the Earl of Buccleuch's son's Grand Tour, was heavily influenced by the ideas of the Physiocrats, and Karl Marx cites them as a reference in Das Kapital; they popularized the modern version of the labor theory of value.

If physiocrat influence on Smith was imperfect, such influence on Marx was even more so.

I am disappointed that nothing more was said about whether Jesus favored a "left-wing" economic system imposed by the government.

"I am disappointed that nothing more was said about whether Jesus favored a "left-wing" economic system imposed by the government."

Not that a little disappointment isn't routine in life, but if you recall, Jesus' purpose was to be a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world. His "favored" government is a theocracy - one in which He will serve as the ruler.

He also told people what they should do while alive, which is why some people (Greg, but also others) connect him with socialism. Anyway, I think it would have been fun to see what Greg, or anyone else, would have said in response to Alan K. Henderson, but unfortunately, the discussion did not go that way.

Well I fear this thread is about to expire. Perhaps our gracious hosts will start another, one to directly address the issue of something like: Jesus, the first Capitalist. Or: Jesus, redistributive Socialist.

greg

I think what Karl was looking for was a response to: Adam Smith, Physiocrat?
but I'm not really sure why.