Scott Sumner has a wonderful post, riffing off a post of Paul Krugman’s. In his post Dr. Krugman lists five “largely empirical questions” that he claims divide progressives from conservatives:
- The existence of anthropogenic climate change
- The effects of fiscal stimulus/austerity
- The effects of monetary expansion, and the risks of inflation
- The revenue effects of tax cuts
- The workability of universal health care
Dr. Sumner gives his responses, for which you should read his post.
I consider myself politically center-center. I can provide empirical evidence and some subjective evidence: most conservatives think I’m liberal and most liberals think I’m conservative, as sure a rule of thumb for being a centrist as one could find. Here are my responses:
- I think that anthropogenic climate change is more likely than not but probably not as dire as many of the global warming advocates claim. Like Dr. Sumner I favor a carbon tax, as much for geopolitical reasons as anything else (although that may have a shelf life). I also think that whether I believe or don’t believe doesn’t make much difference as long as the proposals for slowing global warming won’t do much about it anyway, at least not as long as China and India aren’t on board.
- As I’ve said any number of times I think that fiscal stimulus of the proper sort properly timed can produce economic growth during economic downturns. I also think that the Congress is demonstrably incapable of either structuring fiscal stimulus properly or applying it when needed.
- I think that monetary stimulus would be nifty but I’m not sure how it can be accomplished and I think that persistently very low interest rates are having quite serious negative effects on a lot of businesses (e.g. insurance) and individuals. I’m not that worried about inflation but I am worried that it’s pretty hard to control when hyperinflation begins and that most analyses of hyperinflation are, flatly, wrong. I’m also a bit baffled by Dr. Sumner’s prescriptions which sound to me a lot like Harold Hill’s “Think System”.
- I think the revenue effects of tax cuts are unpredictable as a general proposition. There are conditions under which they will reduce revenue; under other conditions they may increase revenue. I think the same is true of tax increases by the way: there is no single answer as to their revenue effects. I’m skeptical that cuts in the income tax today will increase revenues and, as we have seen recently, increases in the personal income tax rate can increase revenues, at least in the short term. I opposed the “Bush tax cuts” for what it’s worth.
- I’m in favor of universal healthcare, think that there are workable and unworkable systems for accomplishing it, that Canada’s and Singapore’s systems are workable, that our system is unworkable and doesn’t produce universal healthcare. I don’t think that any system is workable that doesn’t include systematic controls on spending.
Progressive/not progressive?
I think Scott grossly misapprehends conservative positions on these issues. CLimate change has become a real litmus test. Stimulus was ok when Bush did it, now it is not. Yes, there are some reasonable conservative economists who understand that cutting tax rates likely lowers revenues, but the political class and the conservative voters dont agree with them. I think Scott is describing the conservative movement of the 1990s. (This is not to say that I think the “progressive ” position on these issues is always correct. In particular, I think stimulus is less effective when you start out with high levels of public debt.)
Steve
He’s not writing about conservatives, generally. He’s responding to Dr. Krugman’s assertions about the conservative intellectuals who are trying to change the Know-Nothing positions that may be more typical of the rank and file. About this group, which includes folks like Tyler Cowen and Greg Mankiw, Dr. Krugman has previously written that he doesn’t read them because they don’t have anything worthwhile to say.
I consider myself politically center-center.
I actually consider sui generis. Your own thing.
Oops, there’s supposed to be a “You” in there after “Consider.”
I’m only curious if Schuler thinks all Republicans are racists. Schuler has been very complimentary of Reynolds being a brilliant and iconoclastic thinker, and Reynolds has said on many occasions that Republicans only oppose Obama because they’re racists. (Sometimes Reynolds allows that some Republicans only oppose Obama because they’re rich assholes.) I’ve asked this before, and Schuler does not respond. So I can only assume that Schuler thinks all opposition to Obama is racist. I’d just like to see him put it in writing instead of leaving it out there as implied.
I’d just like to know what “center-center” means.
Yes, there are some reasonable conservative economists who understand that cutting tax rates likely lowers revenues, but the political class and the conservative voters dont agree with them.
You know, steve, some conservatives don’t think the most important priority in life is making certain that government tax revenues always go up so that more money can be pumped into your sector of the economy. Really, making certain that doctors and healthcare execs get theirs isn’t the most noble purpose of government, although the looters always think they’re the chosen ones.
Also, the flip side of that is that you progressive types believe that an increase in tax rates ALWAYS increases revenues. Let’s try that out by increasing income taxes on doctors to 250% of income. I’m sure it will work out brilliantly.
(Progressives also seem to believe that everyone is rich when it comes time to raise taxes. See Obama’s repeated pledges to raise taxes only on the “rich”, and then raising taxes on anyone with a job early this year. Funny how rich means “anyone with a job” AFTER the election, but before the election it only means Warren Buffet – and any Republican, of course.)
Of course not. Are some Republicans racists? Sure. So are some Democrats. It should be apparent that because I respect Michael doesn’t mean that I agree with him on everything.
Well, for one thing I score smack dab in the middle on the Political Compass. I’m more liberal than most conservatives, more conservative than most liberals, more statist than most libertarians and more libertarian than most statists. I don’t think that any one path has all the answers.
I don’t think I’m brilliant, Ice, I’m just not a huge, crashing bore on an eternal rage high.
Re: Centrism.
Here’s the problem, in my opinion: finding and electing prople who understand which ideas od the right could work well with some ideas of the left. There’s really no such thing as a middle ground, except insofar as we take some left wing, statist ideology and modify it to address the concerns of libertarians.
And unfortunately all the incentives in government are to modify the left wing principles to the benefit of the ruling class, which can easily be dressed up as enlightened moderation when it’s really corruption. This is why I tend to respect far left ideologues more than most of the moderate left wingers, even though I’m conservative. Ideologues of both ends of the spectrum are often nuts, but they’re generally purer of intention IMO.
I think the reason that national politics has become increasingly polarized is a bit different from that. I think the reason is that ideologues find it easier to raise money.
I agree with that, but my comment is why I personally find it hard to support moderate politicians.
Or, more to the point; I feel that a lot of voters believe moderation is a virtue because they believe that moderate politicians are less beholden to the “special interests” but I disagree. Increasingly over the past few decades, I think that rent seeking and public-private enterprises have effectively coapted the center of our body politic.
It should be apparent that because I respect Michael doesn’t mean that I agree with him on everything.
What’s apparent is that you fawn over Reynolds at every opportunity, and make a point of talking about how much you agree with him more so than you do with everyone else combined. And I never see you state that his belief that I’m a Nazi and Drew wants the darkies back in chains is perhaps over the top. When you never take issue with that, and always make the time to talk about what a great guy he is, I assume you agree with him.
So much for the “independent agency” and “hands-off” bullshit.
Yeah, I’ve been following that side of the story. If the White House is trying to look innocent in the IRS affair, they’re certainly not doing a particularly good job of it.
I oppose him because he is a politician.
Good grief. Okay, this blog is not about me, though it’s apparently hard for some people to get that.
This is one of the most consistently interesting blogs around because Schuler is smart, decent, knowledgeable and has interests ranging from the economy to opera to dogs to philosophy.
Unfortunately the comments section is often reduced to discussions of me.
I find that vaguely flattering but also rather dull. And I suspect the polarization about me, wonderful me scares off commenters who are interested in things other than me and my little band of stalkers.
So while I will continue to reading everything Dave cares to write, I will refrain from reading comments or offering my own.
Carry on.
“You know, steve, some conservatives don’t think the most important priority in life is making certain that government tax revenues always go up so that more money can be pumped into your sector of the economy. ”
Non sequitur. The question was what happened when tax rates are cut. You address a separate question.
Steve
“largely empirical questions”
Krugman lost me right there. None of those, exept #1 in a narrow sense, is empirical.
#1 – First of all, consensus isn’t empricism. Secondly, the basic outlines of AGW is probably as empirical as one can get when you’re living the experiment, but the are many basic questions that haven’t been resolved, not the least of which is the real effects of specific concentrations of CO2.
#2 -4 Each of these are highly situational and depend greatly on the details.
Well, they are empirical questions, but the answers are ambiguous. For example, if the economy is growing at 4.%/year do you want fiscal stimulus? Maybe a bit of “austerity” is more in line.
Even in the context of a recession, it depends. The recession of 2001 was relatively short, so trying to hash out a stimulus plan based on spending is probably foolish.
The last one on universal health care is also problematic. AFAIK there are only two sustainable health care systems, Singapore, and the Netherlands (or was it Belgium…). Even Canada is not sustainable. Nor is France.
While universal health care would be great, we also have to keep in mind sustainability (by sustainable I mean the health care grows at a rate equal too or less than economic growth–in real terms).
Dammit another fail at html….
Ok, potentially they are empirical questions, but the evidence related to those questions is ambiguous at best. And so on one hand we have Krugman stating the evidence is “overwhelming” while Sumner begins his response to each point with “I believe…” Cherry picking and cognitive bias rule the day.
I’ll just quote from this:Brink Lindsay essay I’ve linked to many times before:
So much for empiricism….
Andy,
Sumner’s response is more honest than Krugman’s. Stating “I believe” lets the reader know these are not facts, but are in part informed by things other than just simple facts. Facts in and of themselves are good, but to be really useful they need to work inside a theory.
For example, evolution is a fact. The fact of evolution when embedded in evolutionary theory give us much more than just the facts. Is the theory perfect? Heck no. No theory is ever perfect (which is why I consider the anti-evolutionists so amazingly dishonest–e.g. pointing to an imperfect theory to try and debunk facts), but science (broadly defined here as a method, not a group of subjects) allows for theories to be updated, improved, and changed.
BTW this is also a problem for Michael as well. Which theory one believes is in part a subjective choice. This is true for all theories, but the for some the subjectivity is more important than for others. For example, if you are working with theory A for celestial mechanics vs. theory B, the subjective element probably isn’t that big. But for economics the subjective element is pretty substantial and it is based on other beliefs such as how much value does one put on things like liberty…i.e. ability to make choices. For example, as soon as one utters the phrase, “there ought to be a law…” one is indicating a lower value for the ability to make a choice than those who don’t. Granted, sometimes the comment is made in jest or out of frustration, but because my belief system has say a high value on making choices does not invalidate my theories.
So when Michael says, “I’m part of the fact based community,” he is implicitly saying all those who disagree with him is not part of the fact based community. It is a type of logical fallacy. It basically poisons the well for everyone else and also is a guilt by association. And when you stop and consider that many people who consider themselves progressive/Democrats/liberals believe some kooky ass shit that isn’t based in any facts at all (e.g. the autism/vaccination crowd) it then becomes a contest of who can list the most asinine examples and who has the longer list.
A more honest answer is to say, “Okay, nobody has the market cornered on being completely and only informed by facts.” And many of these questions depend on other things like institutions, incentives, and things like that. And even if the facts say a given theory or part of a theory aren’t working it does not mean one has to jettison one’s entire belief structure either. It is like saying, “my car has a flat tire, time to buy a new one.” Why not see if you can fix the flat tire?
But what the fuck do I know, I’m apparently just libertarian in my views because I don’t want to clean my bedroom or some dumb fuck thing like that.