Money math and ideologic unperinnings: The big picture

“On one side, we have the Republicans, whose primary concern is economic growth and debt/deficit reduction, and on the other, the Democrats, who seemingly lie awake at night worrying about income inequality. The big lie of the campaign was that the Republicans were opposed to increases in “revenues” (code word for soaking the rich), when the reality is that the Democrats don’t care as much about revenue as they do about “social justice,” as exemplified by the president’s Marxist remark during one of his primary debates in 2008 that he would increase the capital gains rate even if it reduced revenue, out of “fairness.” And so concerned is he about the debt, that he doesn’t even know how much it is.”

Rand Simberg describes The Ideological Underpinnings of the Tax Rate Debate as a matter of a dynamic situation rather than a static one. At its simplest level, the example is the zero sum game often used by one side to calculate budgets compared to the growth of wealth concept used on the other. The ‘equitable distribution’ of what exists now as if that is all there is to it, an arithmetic approach, gets into concepts of having to punish some in order to achieve social justice or to be ‘fair.’ The growth of wealth concept, on the other hand, is a dynamic vision needing calculus concepts of rate of change and relationships between variables rather than simple arithmetic. Fairness and social justice in the growth of wealth approach are matters of freedom rather of punishment.

What is particularly troublesome is that the zero sum economic ideology has a history of failure that seems to make no impression on its adherents.

Comments are closed.