tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post8097874317845888952..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: How economic specialization led to the welfare stateagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51877847130211204942010-10-15T00:38:32.469-04:002010-10-15T00:38:32.469-04:00If this were the correct explanation, we'd exp...If this were the correct explanation, we'd expect that most welfare programs explicitly target people with obsolete specialized skills, or at least primarily serve such people. This isn't the case, as far as I can tell.Brandon Berghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14490308321355825389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-1139336965572393292010-10-13T20:22:16.315-04:002010-10-13T20:22:16.315-04:00I think you should combine this theory with some o...I think you should combine this theory with some of <a href="http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/batesian-mimicry-explanation-of.html" rel="nofollow">Eric Falkenstein's Mimicry Explanation of Business Cycles</a>.<br /><br />The point of each welfare scheme is to disburse economic resources to "needy" people. If some people <i>pretend</i> to be "needy" just to garner extra resources then either the scheme has to bloat up to carry the freeloaders, or it has to be reorganized. Arguably freeloaders in the US bloated up AFDC too much, leading to the Clinton-era "welfare reform." On a longer timescale the whole complex of welfare programs in one country or another may bloat up to an unsustainable level, forcing a retrenchment accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Perhaps Greece will illustrate that soon.<br /><br />"So what," you ask? Well, an analysis along these lines can explain why people have legitimate objections to many actual welfare programs even though they do support the general notion of welfare programs.<br /><br />Another example: "welfare advocates" noticed long ago that taxpayers didn't seem to mind subsidizing widows and orphans through Social Security, but objected to subsidizing single mothers and their spawn through AFDC. Of course "welfare advocates" unpersuasively denounced that as irrational, the product of perverse moral training. We, however, can observe that the Social Security scheme is a lot less vulnerable to attack by mimics: to get survivors' SS you have to produce the dead body of the former provider. That's much more difficult than AFDC's unemployment test; anyone can make herself unemployed (and many can arrange to be formally unemployed while still working for money).Veracitornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90234860626887817672010-10-13T19:45:27.472-04:002010-10-13T19:45:27.472-04:00"regulative granaries" = primitive welfa..."regulative granaries" = primitive welfare-statism ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-69123358501399810752010-10-13T16:57:31.633-04:002010-10-13T16:57:31.633-04:00However, one of the largest ways of your kin suppo...<i>However, one of the largest ways of your kin supporting you relates to finding a mate, getting married, and raising children. With the decline in kin support over the past few centuries in the developed countries, individuals have been left to fend for themselves in these areas -- and yet there was no welfare state program to help them out.</i><br /><br />The first of these is if anything an understatement, at least in my case. I had almost no expectation that my kinsmen would help me find a wife, and in fact I received no help. The fact that I nonetheless got married is attributable to a number of things, but is probably inseperable from the greater wealth afforded by specialization.<br /><br />It's hard to miss the female-centric priorities of the welfare state we actually have. It has been argued elsewhere that the <i>point</i> of the welfare state is to enable women to <i>forgo</i> marriage to the kind of men that most of them actually wind up with.Dr. Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-37125072112698187182010-10-13T16:26:19.374-04:002010-10-13T16:26:19.374-04:00"If you think that whites are so against all ..."If you think that whites are so against all shades of policies along the AA spectrum, you have to explain why only a rounding-error out of how many hundreds or thousands of politicians at various levels over the past 30 or so years have promised to end all of AA."<br /><br />Observe every referendum to end AA. Every newspaper, every politician, every educational institution, every judge, has condemned the referendum, yet it always passed anyway.<br /><br />That every politician every bureaucrat, every academic, every elected official, has opposed the clear and plain popular will is something you have to explain, not me. <br /><br />It makes perfect sense to me. The political class - all of them - every single one - hate, despise, and fear the people - usually with good reason, sometimes, as with AA, for bad reason.<br /><br />The entire welfare state was introduced in the same manner - it was less violently unpopular than AA, but it was not introduced by popular demand, rather the resistance was less vigorous, and once it was in place and people got used to it, status quo bias inclined them to keep it, while status quo bias has never been sufficient to get the majority of the voters to swallow affirmative action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89114387559055224772010-10-13T16:15:07.318-04:002010-10-13T16:15:07.318-04:00"quotas for blacks and Hispanics don't ma..."quotas for blacks and Hispanics don't make much difference. It turned out to be the inoffensive practice of knocking down lending standards so that blacks and Hispanics could own houses and enjoy the American dream, as well as live where they wanted without redlining."<br /><br />This inoffensive practice sank the American financial system, and looks likely to destroy the US dollar.<br /><br />If you look at the proportion of homes in default in an area, it has an extraordinarily good correlation with the number of hispanics in an area, indicating that affirmative action lending was an even larger factor than lowering lending standards to make the affirmative action loans less grossly improper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91856745581887337112010-10-13T03:05:04.486-04:002010-10-13T03:05:04.486-04:00The same basic insight shows why only referendums ...The same basic insight shows why only referendums on AA get popular approval, meanwhile no politician campaigns on the whole "extra protection for NAMs" system.<br /><br />Referendums frame the policy as blatantly unfair preferences, the government putting their finger on the scale, etc.<br /><br />Yet they never say, "Y'know, this whole worldview that NAMs are more susceptible to bad luck or discrimination is malarky, so we're not only going to eliminate this one policy but roll back the entire system of extra goodies for NAMs."<br /><br />Politicians never say that either. They'll crusade for all sorts of broad causes like greater defense, getting tough on crime, better health care, etc. Yet they never say they're going to tear down the whole AA edifice piece by piece, let alone all at once.<br /><br />If you think that whites are so against all shades of policies along the AA spectrum, you have to explain why only a rounding-error out of how many hundreds or thousands of politicians at various levels over the past 30 or so years have promised to end all of AA.<br /><br />White dislike of AA is like Republican dislike of socialized health care -- they don't want the far extreme of Obamacare, but they still want the just-shy-of-extreme subsidized health care that we already have.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-26065680864366569622010-10-13T02:51:53.404-04:002010-10-13T02:51:53.404-04:00Be more accurate in your phrasing of the context. ...Be more accurate in your phrasing of the context. Here the wording matters. I said it doesn't go over well when framed as quotas -- i.e. "preferences" in hiring and promotion. <br /><br />In the context of the post, I'm talking about whites supporting policies that help out blacks because of what whites (and blacks) perceive as bad luck or discrimination that blacks suffer more from than whites.<br /><br />In the '70s when the AA bandwagon took off, roughly 40% of whites said that the lower station of blacks was due to discrimination (RACDIF1).<br /><br />However, re-word it to ask about discrimination in housing (BLKHOUSE), and 34% of whites say there's "a lot" of discrimination, with another 41% saying there's "some." Focusing on jobs (BLKJOBS), 27% of whites say there's "a lot" of discrimination, with another 47% saying there's "some."<br /><br />Similar figures hold for white views on discrimination in housing and jobs for Hispanics (about 20% say "a lot" and 50% say "some"). For Asians, whites see a lot less discrimination (only about 10% say "a lot" and 50% say "some").<br /><br />Obviously when a majority of whites see discrimination at work behind blacks and Hispanics languishing in the job and housing markets, they're open-minded to programs that claim to alleviate these inequities.<br /><br />Whites only get mad when they perceive the policies go into overkill and result in quotas ("preferences"), which are patently unfair.<br /><br />In the context of the original post, which was about how a larger welfare state might sink the economy or society, quotas for blacks and Hispanics don't make much difference. It turned out to be the inoffensive practice of knocking down lending standards so that blacks and Hispanics could own houses and enjoy the American dream, as well as live where they wanted without redlining.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-5400408600065971792010-10-13T02:11:25.917-04:002010-10-13T02:11:25.917-04:00I checked the GSS. Most whites strongly oppose aff...<a href="http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/most-whites-oppose-affirmative-action/" rel="nofollow">I checked the GSS</a>. Most whites <b>strongly</b> oppose affirmative action.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11829342057174469832010-10-13T01:59:55.079-04:002010-10-13T01:59:55.079-04:00I'd like to see some data supporting your theo...I'd like to see some data supporting your theory. Until then I'd recommend checking out some of <a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/papers_glaeser" rel="nofollow">Ed Glaeser</a>'s papers, like "Why Doesn't the U.S Have a European-Style Welfare State"<br /><br />Affirmative action has lost everytime it was put to referendum, even when all the powers-that-be (from both parties, government, business, academia, etc) were pushing for it. As someone said of one such referendum (Michigan, I believe) "The only ones for it are the people".TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-46735894870023158152010-10-12T21:17:27.929-04:002010-10-12T21:17:27.929-04:00"And sorry, but if whites were so outraged at..."And sorry, but if whites were so outraged at affirmative action, that's a free election for politicians"<br /><br />That assumes that democracy works. For a variety of well studied reasons, it does not, and never has. Your argument assumes democracy accurately represents the will of the people. It does not, and would probably be even worse than it is if it did.<br /><br />Affirmative action is one of many matters where democracy conspicuously and demonstrably fails to represent the will of the people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-56485846211793858942010-10-12T19:29:34.683-04:002010-10-12T19:29:34.683-04:00"the insecurity theory would not explain why ..."the insecurity theory would not explain why the base was reasonably close to that view themselves."<br /><br />That's not the job of the theory, which is about the rise of the welfare state, not the process by which whites gradually sympathized more with blacks and wanted to give them extra goodies through the government.<br /><br />And sorry, but if whites were so outraged at affirmative action, that's a free election for politicians -- just make that what you campaign on. Whites get mad at really egregious cases, but they accept the basic concepts and worldview that underlies the system.<br /><br />If you don't like the policies that we get, blame the voters. If whites aren't as outraged at affirmative action as you'd like, try to do something to change that. Don't deny it and blame it on special interests hijacking the state -- they can only hijack what the public doesn't care enough about to protect.<br /><br />Illegal immigration is different. It only really destroys a handful of states, unlike AA, so most are unaware of its impact. But where it is strong, there's quite a bit of popular and politician agitation to reduce its harms.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-15620279665729615952010-10-12T19:25:23.236-04:002010-10-12T19:25:23.236-04:00"And class warfare has all but disappeared. W..."And class warfare has all but disappeared. When the social safety net was provided locally through self-help groups like unions or mafias, then there was real class warfare -- like Italian anarchists lobbing bombs at Wall Street buildings.<br /><br />"But now that the welfare state provides so much without the lower class' need to agitate for it over and over"<br /><br />But the lower class never agitated for it over and over. The bomb throwers of which you speak were middle class people, children of the affluent with no pressing need to work for a living. It came from above, pretty much the way that affirmative action lending came. <br /><br />Marxists and to some extent politically correct history tell this story that there was once a time of violent revolutionary class struggle. If you read contemporary documents, it becomes apparent that this story is, in America, fantasy and wishful thinking.<br /><br />Proletarians were no more agitating for social justice back then than Hispanics are agitating for Spanish language education and open borders today. The bomb throwers, for example the Wobblies, came from the same social class as Obama's terrorist buddy Bill Ayers. They never had a base amongst American workers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86570938028502029252010-10-12T19:06:25.640-04:002010-10-12T19:06:25.640-04:00"The Republicans, the party of whites, could ..."The Republicans, the party of whites, could not have pushed all that nonsense about minority lending if their base wasn't reasonably close to that view themselves."<br /><br />If the base was close to that view themselves, the insecurity theory would not explain why the base was reasonably close to that view themselves.<br /><br />Also, the base is not close to that view: Whenever affirmative action has been put to a vote among the common people, as in California, it has been defeated, and yet the elite has illegally and unconstitutionally ignored that vote.<br /><br />The fact that there is a massive cover up of the scale and cost affirmative action lending tells us how violently unpopular the program is.<br /><br />Similarly with illegal immigration. Even Hispanics support a tougher position on illegal immigration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-39170966805541067982010-10-12T15:40:51.246-04:002010-10-12T15:40:51.246-04:00As for sex-based warfare, welfare state policies d...As for sex-based warfare, welfare state policies don't drive this up either because, as with race, men over time have come to sympathize more with women's "plight." They support fairly open abortion rights, no-fault divorce, no penalty for adultery, etc.<br /><br />And class warfare has all but disappeared. When the social safety net was provided locally through self-help groups like unions or mafias, then there was real class warfare -- like Italian anarchists lobbing bombs at Wall Street buildings.<br /><br />But now that the welfare state provides so much without the lower class' need to agitate for it over and over, they've been pacified. Sure there's resentment, envy, etc., but a lot less than before, and violence or even not-so-violent confrontation has vanished.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51575997632242371972010-10-12T15:23:12.192-04:002010-10-12T15:23:12.192-04:00Actually it can be. The majority, including of whi...Actually it can be. The majority, including of whites, are friendly toward affirmative action, especially when it is sold not so much as quotas but as ending harmful discrimination.<br /><br />Otherwise it would not have survived for so long; there would have been rollback due to voter outrage. The Republicans, the party of whites, could not have pushed all that nonsense about minority lending if their base wasn't reasonably close to that view themselves.<br /><br />Over time, white have come to sympathize more and more with the plight of blacks. Therefore when they put themselves in their shoes, they are more likely to ascribe their plight to bad luck or discrimination.<br /><br />In this mindset at the voting booth, they'll vote for a group of people who will create or maintain affirmative action in its broad outlines, although specific cases may draw the public's ire now and then.<br /><br />If you mean that these desires for security have a longer-term reduction in security due to a housing meltdown or ballooning national debts -- sure, but it's clear that I'm using "desire for security" in the short-term sense. E.g., you lose your job and need to cushion in your own lifetime. Not "security" in terms of centuries-long stability or robustness.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-49182176970409387422010-10-12T14:30:40.223-04:002010-10-12T14:30:40.223-04:00This fails to explain some striking aspects of the...This fails to explain some striking aspects of the welfare state - its class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare, and social engineering aspects, all of which adversely affect security.<br /><br />Consider, for example, the present financial crisis. The general cause of this crisis, world wide, was Basel, which gave regulators the job of deciding risk rather than markets, and of course, everywhere they decided that politically correct lending, and lending to the well connected, was safe, and all other forms of lending were unsafe. In the US, this primarily took the effect of affirmative action lending.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.jim.com/economics/falkenblog-locates-the-guilty.html" rel="nofollow">As Harvard assured us in 2005</a> racial justice required lower lending standards, which wound up as gigantic program of race based plunder, which cannot be explained by desire for security.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com