I missed this earlier.
I think it really nails that with the exception of VERY few people we all accept ‘a little redistribution’. The key is how much, to who and how. A good way to think of this is if we can transfer income to a group especially those we think of as needy, how much leakage are we willing to tolerate, if any.
In other other words how much of a loss in total production would we be willing to accept to help the least fortunate. Republicans at least traditionally were willing to accept less, but generally still accepted that at least maintaining some kind of safety net was critical. Democrats were willing to tolerate or risk the most productive being less so to help the neediest to a greater degree.
That seems the way the discussion should happen, not acting like the whole idea of redistribution is shockingly unamerican
Sent to you by Bruce via Google Reader:
via Economix by By UWE E. REINHARDT on 9/28/12
The United States has a long history of redistribution of wealth for the social good, and the real debate about it needs to focus on the levels at which it should kick in, an economist writes.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Economix using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites