Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama and wealth redistribution

I briefly discussed Obama's comments on the courts and the redistribution of wealth on a morning radio show on KRSM in Osage Beach, MO (OK, I'm on the B-team) and expect to do a few more around the country in the next few days.

The response of the Obama supporters to the issue in general seems to be that there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the state redistributing income and there is a sense in which that is true. If you believe in government provided services - even the standards like roads, schools, national defense and law enforcement - and that these services should be funded by a tax - even a flat tax - based on income, wealth or property value (as opposed to user fees or a pro rata charge), then you support some redistribution of wealth.

But this is hardly the "gotcha" that it is claimed to be. And that's where the interview is instructive.

Obama notes, mostly correctly, that courts have largely (although not entirely) seen the constitution as a guarantor of negative liberties, protecting you from the government rather than requiring that the government do anything for you. They have not much addressed the redistribution of wealth or become involved in what one caller during the interview called "reparative economic work."

The interview - or at least the portions that we have heard - makes clear that Obama is not,as he put it, "optimistic" about accomplishing this work through the courts. What is not clear is whether he thinks this is because it cannot be done well in this way (he suggests that is the case), is not required by the Constitution (he talks about the Constitution as "it has been interpreted") or just as a matter of addressing the likelihood of success. At one point, he suggests that legal arguments in support of such reparative work could be made.

But what is also clear is that he believes that this work is in order. The state, if not by judicial fiat then by legislation, ought to remedy the economic injustice wrought by markets.

Here's where we start to sort people out. I certainly believe that we should give everyone an opportunity for an education and that certain public facilities and services should be provided for everyone. I even believe that there ought to be a safety net that guarantees basic subsistence and medical care for everyone. I know of few people who don't.

But, at the same time, I think that most of what passes for "reparative" economic work is counterproductive. Obama, in his interview, suggests that it was a tragedy that the civil rights movement remained "court-focused" and either because of the limitations of the Constitution, nonresponsiveness of the courts or unwieldiness of the judicial process, did not accomplish this economic reparation.

I respect and like many people who hold that view. I can see its attraction. But it's wrong and, if adopted, would represent a hard left turn from policies which, over the past 30 years, have been spectacularly successful.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The irony is that redistribution (reparation) of wealth is oppressive. OK, its not really ironic, since Democrats are authoritarians - indeed the role model for Obama isn't so much Ayers or Wright as it is "big brother." So keep blogging until January 20, 2009, when you will be shut down without due process (notice). If you're lucky, you won't be tried as an enemy of the state.

Jack Lohman said...

So it's okay when the rules cause the wealth to transfer to the rich, but not to the poor?

Guys, it's payback time.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

Anonymous said...

Knowing your background is in legal matters, let me offer this: historical cycles have proven that voters permit the GOP drive for 8 years before they turn the keys back to the Dem's. If, after the next 8 years, the GOP can produce a noteworthy candidate and a platform that resonates with the middle 20 percent of the electorate, then maybe they'll get another shot at steering the ship of state.

Following next Tuesday, I will look forward to your returning to state and local political issues where you have shown some propensity for insight.

Anonymous said...

If a government system that works to transfer wealth to the wealthy encourages the accumulation of wealth by all its cicizens, could the transfer of wealth to the poor encourage poverty.

Anonymous said...

10-28-08
Beijing, China
Unassociated Fictional Press

The Government of The Peoples Republic of China has unanimously
endorsed McCain/Palin for President of the United States.

"They are our kind of leaders!" says a Government spokesperson.
"They understand that business and the government should be in control,
not the silly workers, or 'people' as they sometimes call themselves.
Also, we understand the Republic concept. It is Democracy we find
distasteful."

A leading General, who wished to remain anonymous, had this to say
about President McCain: "We planted many post-hypnotic suggestions
in our former P.O.W.'s mind and we are beside ourselves with
anticipation at having the opportunity to trigger them and have control
of the white house without even having to wage a war..."

"And if that fails," a second anonymous official pipes in "it's not like
George W. Bush did not already sell it to us anyway."


P.S. We sure hope that Sarah Palin and her corrupt comrade Ted Stevens dream of
a free Alaska comes true someday so we can do serious business.

tom paine said...

Rick,

I know that you do, and I would hope that anyone with a double digit IQ could figure out what Obama was really talking about.

It was the trend of the wealth in our nation heading ever upward to the top 5 or 10 percent of the people. It was evidenced when CEO pay went from around 20 times what the average employee earned to over 400 times the average worker pay in 2007. Then add in the clever Wall Street white shirts who made literally hundreds of millions of dollars mostly for simply pushing papers around...rather than creating a product or a service.

It all culminated when the white shirts got so greedy that they figured out they could use vastly overvalued mortgage loans to "create" even more wealth for themselves. But it wasn't just that they used these subprime and overvalued loans. It was how they used them. They came up with all sorts of clever names and terms that really must have looked good on the balance sheet..."derivatives...bundling...futures...swaps...forward rate agreements...exotic options...collateral debt obligations" to name a few of the neat names the white collar crooks came up with.

Check with you financial whiz bangs to see if they can recall when the amount of money the white shirts could obtain with these often nearly worthless securitites was increasaed from 12:1 (which was bad enough) to 40:1.

Maybe this is the type of stuff that Obama wants to "redistribute" or maybe it's the current $900 BILLION in bailouts that is going only to those upper 5 percent guys who created the problem is the first place.

I realize that the Obama and Dem haters must keep playing the "redistribute the wealth" nosense since Bush has given them little else upon which to hang their hats. But let's at least keep everything in some sort of perspective.

Anonymous said...

"The response of the Obama supporters to the issue in general seems to be that there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the state redistributing income and there is a sense in which that is true."

LOL. This would be the same sense in which it's true that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

tom paine said...

Clutch, it appears that you do not actually know what was in the 2001 radio quote attributed to Obama. This seems to be a common malady, especially among the McCain campaign as they grope for an issue...any issue...that might make the economy go away.

Let me assist you:

What Obama was talking about was a 1973 court ruling on "...issues on redistribution and wealth inequality with respect to schools." Yes, he was talking about schools!

Stupid people, such as McCain economic advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin (he of the famous Blackberry flub) immediatley tried to characterize and change Obama's words into some sort of monolithic attempt to take money away from every wage earner in our nation.

This must have been what confused Joe the unlicensed Plumber who made $41K last year but is worried about a tax that kicks in at $250K a year.

Hope this helps your understanding of the facts.

Anonymous said...

Mr Paine, it appears that you do not know much about celestial mechanics.

Read my comment -- read the actual words, this time -- and notice that it's poking fun at Rick Esenberg's strange qualification "there is a sense", for something that is not "true in a sense" but just plain true: there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the state redistributing income.

tom paine said...

Oops...my mistake clutch. Celestial mechanics was never my strong suit I guess.

However, I did enjoy my explanation!

Palcorki said...

Gosh,

Shark seems to doing a great job-

But Dems authoritarian? (The Grand Old Thieves Party foment what is essentially fascism the past 8 years and Dems are the authoritarians. Apparently IQ or perspective or a clue doesn't trickle down either!)


Does this sound familiar...

"But I'm the Decider!" AND this is what I decided.

and best and most telling of all-

"Mr. Cheney 70% of all Americans oppose the war."

"So."

The Treasonist-In-Chief should tried as an enemy of the state after 1/20/09...just like his GrandDaddy Prescott shoulda been after WWII.

tom paine said...

Palcorki,

Actually both Prescott Bush and Bert Walker (our current Prez's grand daddys) were both in effect charged with violating the 1931 "Trading with the Enemy ACT".

The Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942.

Prior to that, on Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Yet people worry about minor players such as Ayers in the current campaign. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

I've just recently downloaded Mt4 Protect and wanted to tell you guys about my experience with it.
I was worried about all the Metatrader 4 Malware out there at the moment as I heard you can get them from downloading Expert Advisors from the web.
While I don't download decompiled forex robots the last thing I want is some hacker getting my account details and draining my trading account as I have built it up into quite a bit of cash. That's why I purchased MT4 protect so it can stop my pc from getting attacked. I think the price is well worth the protection I will receive
I bought a copy at [url=http://www.mt4protect.com/] www.mt4protect.com [/url] via paypal and my product code was sent to me within 4 hours.
I installed it and its awesome! It works in the system tray and scans my computer in real time to detect any attacks.
The EA optimization tool is so great - you can allocate more memory to your MT4 terminal so your trades get executed faster! There are also heaps of registry tweaks and cleanup features that have turbocharged up my Windows XP computer.
With Trojans and virus attacks hitting Forex traders all the time now I definitely think that MT4 Protect is a worthwhile investment.