I followed your discussion with Ruy Teixeira with interest and general agreement. I found it curios that he identifies as a progressive while criticizing progressive excess, when I have come to think of a progressive as a liberal absent constraint of excess. I did find his seeming disdain for climate initiatives, especially coming from a self-styled progressive, to be off-putting, both in tone and substance. While voters may be put off by policies that would seem to ignore individual preferences as expressed by market forces, their preferences in general might often seem to elevate immediate gratification over any widespread sense of responsibility for the common good. If government is be the guarantor of individual liberty as well as guardian of the commons, in ways in which private markets often fail or for which those forces are conceptually inadequate, some aspects of industrial policy would seem to be (guardedly) appropriate. As one who values my personal freedom, i.e. the right of choice, I prefer my older, less efficient, gas guzzler to the prospect of a ‘clean’ electric replacement. It’s paid for, and in regards to fuel cost, I don’t put that many miles on it. It will probably last me for the duration. (They will have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands.) However, I am in general supportive of rapid, even costly, replacement of the transportation system in general with electric vehicles and of the rapid and costly transition away from carbon based energy sources. I am aware that this cannot happen overnight and depends in large part on technologies, some of which are nascent or yet to be invented. Indeed, market forces are nudging us in that direction.
But time would seem to be in short supply. One does not, as Bob says, have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. In the absence of propaganda sources I do not have to look far to see for myself the looming threat of the apocalypse—it is enveloping rather than "looming" and increasingly contributes to the general feeling of anxiety that is driving cultural and political instability.
Both parties are addicted to populist appeal as their claim to legitimacy. Hence the deep appeal of the idea of a movement toward the creation of a third party appealing to ideals of good governance. Statesmanship has long been replaced, except in occasional residual or isolated instances, by celebrity grifters with wet fingers to the wind of popular opinion. Elected officials need be reminded that leadership is their job description, rather than that of being poll readers, charged as thy are to analysis and action on the basis of principles for which they were chosen by voters who will register their opinion of their performance at the next election; and need be reminded that integrity requires not being overly anxious of losing one’s position for having done one’s job.
It is hard to imagine how we may effectively address our current problems, including the depths of despair and cynicism that inhibit meaningful progress, without a return of local state and national leadership of a caliber now in very short supply, of leaders devoted to ideals of personal freedom and initiative but of personal and collective responsibility as well, of leaders prepared to tell constituents what they may not want to hear, but of such stature and integrity that those, who sent them to office in respect of their character may be inclined to listen, to be open to rational arguments in support of the common good, even when at their own expense. Moral action is first unilateral rather than transactional, and its influence spreads from the epicenter of its expression. Such a resurgence of political integrity presumes a resurgence of national ethos to the extent of a shared sense of commonality, of an awareness that civic duty may entail personal sacrifice, and of a concern for continuation of that which is left behind our personal demise. The return of local, state and national leadership within the confines of democratic republican concepts will only occur with a general resurgence of individual morality and recognition of personal and communal responsibilities sufficient to the growth of civic participation and enlightened leadership. Such transformation must happen a mind at a time, no magic conversion wand, but can be built around the germ of personal integrity and unilateral moral action and, subsequently those individuals so defined acting in concert in pursuit of the common good. Good and evil both have the quality of being contagious. Enough with the bread and circus, let’s get back to civic responsibility and good governance.
Biden would seem to be crossing a line when taking a partisan stance in support of the UAW, consistent, of course, with his old school image of the now rare Democrat concerned with the interest of the common man, other than of those represented by well-defined identity/interest groups. Rather than a voice of consensus in support of an integrated relationship between capital and labor, he frequently extols the value of labor, as the engine of prosperity, while discounting the importance of capital formation and the role of management in the role of concept and direction of the enterprise, as if labor, with adequate pay and benefits, could, on its own, get the job done. An economist might be forgiven for seeing prosperity as dependent on a synthesis of those elements—no products or profits to be made without labor and, without capital and its managerial direction, the hands of labor idle.
Both sides of the current issue would seem to have legitimate elements of their arguments. The companies have rebounded from the brink of extinction thanks in significant part to radical concessions made by the union in recognition of the real threat of the loss of the jobs of all workers as a result of the imminent collapse of the industry as a result of foreign competition. A protected industry having grown fat and complacent was producing low quality products that consumers were not buying, enthralled as they were by products with less in the way of fins but with higher reliability and lower operating costs. Labor had grown fat as well, able to wring pay and benefits from companies that could pass along bloated costs to a captive market. When that situation was no longer viable the piper came calling. A return to the status quo ante in terms of relative pay and benefits would inevitably recreate, without protectionist measures and the elimination of non-union shops in the Republican Southeast, a repetition of the crises. It would seem that Ricardo’s law is still a relevant constraint. Henry Ford’s insight, that better pay would enable his workers to buy his cars, and along with better working and living conditions would produce a more productive workforce, is also relevant.
I followed your discussion with Ruy Teixeira with interest and general agreement. I found it curios that he identifies as a progressive while criticizing progressive excess, when I have come to think of a progressive as a liberal absent constraint of excess. I did find his seeming disdain for climate initiatives, especially coming from a self-styled progressive, to be off-putting, both in tone and substance. While voters may be put off by policies that would seem to ignore individual preferences as expressed by market forces, their preferences in general might often seem to elevate immediate gratification over any widespread sense of responsibility for the common good. If government is be the guarantor of individual liberty as well as guardian of the commons, in ways in which private markets often fail or for which those forces are conceptually inadequate, some aspects of industrial policy would seem to be (guardedly) appropriate. As one who values my personal freedom, i.e. the right of choice, I prefer my older, less efficient, gas guzzler to the prospect of a ‘clean’ electric replacement. It’s paid for, and in regards to fuel cost, I don’t put that many miles on it. It will probably last me for the duration. (They will have to pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands.) However, I am in general supportive of rapid, even costly, replacement of the transportation system in general with electric vehicles and of the rapid and costly transition away from carbon based energy sources. I am aware that this cannot happen overnight and depends in large part on technologies, some of which are nascent or yet to be invented. Indeed, market forces are nudging us in that direction.
But time would seem to be in short supply. One does not, as Bob says, have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. In the absence of propaganda sources I do not have to look far to see for myself the looming threat of the apocalypse—it is enveloping rather than "looming" and increasingly contributes to the general feeling of anxiety that is driving cultural and political instability.
Both parties are addicted to populist appeal as their claim to legitimacy. Hence the deep appeal of the idea of a movement toward the creation of a third party appealing to ideals of good governance. Statesmanship has long been replaced, except in occasional residual or isolated instances, by celebrity grifters with wet fingers to the wind of popular opinion. Elected officials need be reminded that leadership is their job description, rather than that of being poll readers, charged as thy are to analysis and action on the basis of principles for which they were chosen by voters who will register their opinion of their performance at the next election; and need be reminded that integrity requires not being overly anxious of losing one’s position for having done one’s job.
It is hard to imagine how we may effectively address our current problems, including the depths of despair and cynicism that inhibit meaningful progress, without a return of local state and national leadership of a caliber now in very short supply, of leaders devoted to ideals of personal freedom and initiative but of personal and collective responsibility as well, of leaders prepared to tell constituents what they may not want to hear, but of such stature and integrity that those, who sent them to office in respect of their character may be inclined to listen, to be open to rational arguments in support of the common good, even when at their own expense. Moral action is first unilateral rather than transactional, and its influence spreads from the epicenter of its expression. Such a resurgence of political integrity presumes a resurgence of national ethos to the extent of a shared sense of commonality, of an awareness that civic duty may entail personal sacrifice, and of a concern for continuation of that which is left behind our personal demise. The return of local, state and national leadership within the confines of democratic republican concepts will only occur with a general resurgence of individual morality and recognition of personal and communal responsibilities sufficient to the growth of civic participation and enlightened leadership. Such transformation must happen a mind at a time, no magic conversion wand, but can be built around the germ of personal integrity and unilateral moral action and, subsequently those individuals so defined acting in concert in pursuit of the common good. Good and evil both have the quality of being contagious. Enough with the bread and circus, let’s get back to civic responsibility and good governance.
Biden would seem to be crossing a line when taking a partisan stance in support of the UAW, consistent, of course, with his old school image of the now rare Democrat concerned with the interest of the common man, other than of those represented by well-defined identity/interest groups. Rather than a voice of consensus in support of an integrated relationship between capital and labor, he frequently extols the value of labor, as the engine of prosperity, while discounting the importance of capital formation and the role of management in the role of concept and direction of the enterprise, as if labor, with adequate pay and benefits, could, on its own, get the job done. An economist might be forgiven for seeing prosperity as dependent on a synthesis of those elements—no products or profits to be made without labor and, without capital and its managerial direction, the hands of labor idle.
Both sides of the current issue would seem to have legitimate elements of their arguments. The companies have rebounded from the brink of extinction thanks in significant part to radical concessions made by the union in recognition of the real threat of the loss of the jobs of all workers as a result of the imminent collapse of the industry as a result of foreign competition. A protected industry having grown fat and complacent was producing low quality products that consumers were not buying, enthralled as they were by products with less in the way of fins but with higher reliability and lower operating costs. Labor had grown fat as well, able to wring pay and benefits from companies that could pass along bloated costs to a captive market. When that situation was no longer viable the piper came calling. A return to the status quo ante in terms of relative pay and benefits would inevitably recreate, without protectionist measures and the elimination of non-union shops in the Republican Southeast, a repetition of the crises. It would seem that Ricardo’s law is still a relevant constraint. Henry Ford’s insight, that better pay would enable his workers to buy his cars, and along with better working and living conditions would produce a more productive workforce, is also relevant.