fantastic/phenomenal

On Freedom

Freedom is restricted through limits on many sides. There is only so far we can go in removing these limits. These limits include, but are not limited to: coercion, lack of representation, illness, lack of knowledge or skills, social structure, lack or social capital, and access to resources.

By pushing back limits to choice and action in a comprehensive way and not overstepping in our approach of this, we can see a comprehensive and self-supporting expansion of what is possible in the realm of choice and action. In this analysis, no particular limit is absolute in it’s position because if it were so, it restricts our ability to address the other limits of choice and action, thereby making us less free. This is based particular defition of freedom, which falls in the most general sense:

: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Merriam-Webster)

What I contend with this definition is that libertarianism, anarcholibertarianism, Friedmanism, etc, have a limited understanding of freedom. It is defficient to understand freedom from only one criteria. To address coercion without necessity and constraint in action is a defficient way to view the question of freedom. This is not to diminish the role of liberty as a central criteria for organizing society -in fact, liberty is one of organzing features of this defintion. Freedom, in its comprehensive sense does not exist without a reasonable provision of all three. The interaction of these three criteria of freedom are in part re-enforcing. For example, greater liberty in economic affairs allows one to provide for oneself freeing the individual of excessive want. The preservation of liberty in many cases, also takes a person with a great enough level of welfare to forgoe other duties in order to take political action. These criteria, in where they trade off with each other cannot be absolute. Take the same example of liberty and welfare. Expansions of general welfare may often come at the expense of liberty and vice-versa. If either is pursued in full, one of the components of comprehensive freedom will need to be excluded. Therefore, in order to attain comprehensive freedom, we must only pursue each criteria insofar as it does not exert undue influence on the more general understanding of freedom.

Utilitarianism is more suited to prevention of pain than to creation of happiness.  It doesn’t seem that any economic organization can grant us happiness, but may help or at least not interfere with our ability to pursue it. 

Inequality pt. 2: Instability Theories

Inequality can also be broken down into income, savings and credit. These are all the foundation to equality of consumption, which is mostly interesting (to everyone who isn’t a a Marxist) in that it shows the ability to purchase resources and commodities people have in different income distributions. Because people have the ability to budget over time, they can smooth their consumption by borrowing from the future or the past. Future borrowing, however, demands reasonably easy entrance to credit markets. Borrowing from the past, on the other hand, depends on the income inequality of the past and requires an accumulation in order to be a meaningful source of demand smoothing. So when you have inequality in all three (or scarcity in credit and high inequality of past income), it leaves people without a safety net to smooth consumption. Individuals and families who may be subject to an income shock (unemployment, underemployment, health concerns, etc) will need to budget in some way to take account of these problems. Since net worth is lowest in the same segments that credit access is lowest, and are also more likely to suffer an income shock, this might account for a meaningful drop in aggregate demand that can trigger a re-enforcing cycle of unemployment and falling demand.

(Again, roughly paraphrasing Fabrizio Perri and Jonathan Heathcoate)

The 99%, OWS and Inequality

The 99% is an interesting (and meaningful) look at income inequality in the United States. However, the way inequality breaks down is more than that. When measuring income inequality as deviations from a mean on either side can be meaningful as well. Larger deviations in the poor suggest that questions of social safety nets should be addressed. Deviation upwards, on the other hand, suggests that we investigate political economy and excessive power.

(Roughly paraphrasing Fed researcher Fabrizio Perri)

hmsboatsix:

fantasticphenomenal:

My support of OWS is less so based on specific economic goals of the protesters, and more on the fact that what they’re doing is a necessary part of paradigm change in a democratic system. I support changing the conversation.

I’d assume it would be hard to support the specific economic goals of #occupywallst when the general economic goal is to abolish capitalism as we know it.

Doesn’t really lend itself well to your particular choice of career, now does it?

Thing brings up a good point, that I don’t get around to making as often as I should: Why would we want to abolish capitalism? That sounds like an utterly stupid thing to do. Reform gov’t? Yes. Remove linkages between the democratic process and large economic firms? Yes. Challenge the power of the rent seeking financial sector? Absolutely.

Abolish captalism? With a law? By destroying property rights? By central planning? How will we abolish capitalism? With love? Are we going to just say, ”People! you can’t trade what you own! That’s not one of your fundamental rights!” or maybe “You can’t own!” Or maybe “You can own, but only with other people!”

I call bullshit.

(via hmsboatsix-deactivated20120101-)

My support of OWS is less so based on specific economic goals of the protesters, and more on the fact that what they’re doing is a necessary part of paradigm change in a democratic system. I support changing the conversation.

If you do back-of-the-envelope calculations, it becomes clear that no rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention. As such, economists who argue that the death penalty works are put in the uncomfortable position of having to argue that criminals are irrationally overreacting when they are deterred by it.

— 

Steven D. Levitt, “Does the Death Penalty Really Reduce Crime?”

I’m unfamiliar with the policy side of the death penalty and it’s effects, but from a quick look around I would be hard pressed to believe it’s having any sort of positive effect on society. Actually, even if it were a deterrent, I’m not sure that could hold much weight against the sheer brutality and contempt for human dignity the policy entails.

The republican party shows remarkable contempt for human life. So it goes.

Money is only valuable as an instrument.

Eugene Onegin was a wonderful book.