Comments on: The Bailouts are Like Paying Off Molested Children

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:01:29 +0000

Every leftist and liberaltard who didn't go to a Tea Party should probably keep their mouths shut about them.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:01:29 +0000

Every leftist and liberaltard who didn't go to a Tea Party should probably keep their mouths shut about them.

By: Neel Krishnaswami

Neel Krishnaswami — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:57:54 +0000

“We redistribute out of a desire to fix structural imbalances that unduly harm some.”

“Fixing structural imbalances” is overwhelmingly unlikely to be the reason why most people support transfers. We can see that this, because when we make a list of things that promote structural inequality in the US — such as the War on Drugs, the poor quality of public schools, regressive schemes of taxation and benefit, unfair systems of policing and criminal law — we see that there's very little constituency for fixing those problems.

I suspect that redistributive policies enjoy the popularity they do, because they give money to people who don't have it, and who would suffer harm without it. Giving money to hungry people so they can buy food is popular, because hunger is a simple harm which easily triggers the sentiment of empathy. (This contrasts with the complex causal processes underlying structural inequality.) I've got no evidence for this supposition, of course, but at least it's not immediately falsified by casual observation….

By: anon

anon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:45:31 +0000

The 'whole system' the bailouts were meant to 'keep going' is fraudulent, which is why the bailouts were necessary in the first place. So not only is giving fraudulent corporations public funds not fair, the end the bailouts are supposed to achieve is itself not fair. The systemic risk premise was a threat to justify the wealth transfer.

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:21 +0000

But “my” proposal would do that. And, yes, it would be very controversial.

By: Michael Drake

Michael Drake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:19:43 +0000

“Maybe it was the best thing for the church to pay off molested children, but that doesn’t mean Will’s dad wants to pay for it.”

Sunk costs.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:00:43 +0000

Or you could work to a create a system that doesn't inherently concentrate more and more wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. But this is controversial.

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:38:46 +0000

"We redistribute out of a desire to fix structural imbalances that unduly harm some.

To rip off Hanson a bit, perhaps "we" redistribute to signal solidarity and concern for the poor. Maybe not, but I buy it.

For instance:

"I can see an argument where it is unfair to have your money taxed away from you. To think that this unfairness is equal or even comparable to the unfairness of being born into poverty and all of its attendant suffering just doesn't compute for me."

So in this scenario being born poor and having your money are both considered unfair, albeit unequally. Taxation is necessary because some people are poor, and some people are poor because they were born poor. It would then follow that both unfairnesses have same root cause: poor people having children. The logical solution would be to require people to have the means to pay for their children before they have them. But, of course, this would send the wrong signal.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:30:20 +0000

As usual, I just find the definition of what constitutes unfairness here bizarre. We redistribute out of a desire to fix structural imbalances that unduly harm some. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way. Of course, money flows to special interest. Of course. It sucks. But to say “redistribution is unfair” in a country where the single most powerful correlative factor for whether you will be wealthy or poor is whether your parents were wealthy or poor is just strange moral logic to me. Unfair? I can see an argument where it is unfair to have your money taxed away from you. To think that this unfairness is equal or even comparable to the unfairness of being born into poverty and all of its attendant suffering just doesn't compute for me. A kid who grows up punishingly poor and hungry in a drug and crime-riddled inner city without the benefit of a stable family or proper socialization– such a person knows about unfairness on a level that someone who feels overtaxed doesn't. I am not unsympathetic, at all, to people who feel robbed by taxes. But I can't imagine a reasonable perspective that imagines that to be anywhere near the top of our society's list of injustices. People arguing against redistribution as unfair have a rather narrow definition of fairness.

Here's where I can come on board with arguments to fairness: abolish inheritance. Then we can talk about fair.

By: John

John — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:47:33 +0000

This whole bailout/stimulus business has radically altered my views on government spending. In the olden days, I used to think welfare spending was a negative force because it created poor incentives and instilled dependency. Now, I would feel better about $1 trillion of pure transfer payments to the poor than $1 trillion for the construction of a network of government jobs and projects that essentially go to friends and family of existing government employees and other influential people. I would rather my tax dollars go to someone who actually needs help than upper-middle class government employees with union-protected jobs and bottomless pensions. I'm now paying more attention to incentives within the government than to those of the general pop.