Word Verification

I can disable word verification but it may lead to the appearance of ad-spam a la MySpace. You guys let me know want you want to do, and I will implement the Will of the People.

Tix out of McLoin's America

From Kristof's (slightly less crappy than usual) column in todays NYTimes:

"...the big winner of the Democratic fist-fighting is Senator McCain. A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 19 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. McCain in the general election if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. More startling, 28 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama were the nominee."

In light of this information, and the looming McLoin Presidency, let me again reiterate how easy it is to move to Europe. Anyone wanting specific bits of advice on how to secure unalienated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines in France or Germany, complete with contacts in some cities, good addresses for apartment hunting and tested watering holes, don't hesitate to ask.

Massive Government Bailout?

Pretend like the last time I was in an economics classroom was Spring of 2001, and that I've since filled my head with a lot of other stuff.

Can someone please explain to me why anyone would be so against Federal intervention as proposed by Klinton or Obama in the wake of the downturn and subprime business?

Is it just the same old "I want lower taxes, and smaller government, but I would like a check?" Or is there actually something to McLoin's objections?

I think I already know the disappointing truth, that the people against "unwieldy Federal intervention" to help Americans that got hurt by predatory lending are the same ones who are always really excited about massive Federal intervention when it's abroad and entails spending millions bombing the shit out of foreigners.

But another take, and one with more economics sagesse, would be nice to hear.

On Effort

The link above is to a Michael Albert article responding to a critique of Parecon (particpatory economics) that raised many of the ideas against effort that have been described elsewhere in this blog. In case it doesn't show up as I planned, here it is again: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/4346.

I would like to start by questioning the premise that markets are a suitable way for a non-capitalist economy to approach economics. Markets give heavy weight to individual preferences instead of focusing on group decision making. In markets we think our individual preferences can be aggregated to discern what we as a group desire. I believe, however, that we would see a much different group desire if the system of allocation were based on a decision making process that did not privilege individuality but a group consensus. Why rely on an invisible hand when we can ask ourselves what we want to produce and how much we want to consume?

Turning to labor markets specifically, I see nothing efficient in the way current labor markets work. Jobs are not paid based on their usefulness to society, nor are wages neatly tied to the investment that one makes in preparing for the job. We have privileged intellectual work (some of which provides little societal value) over any physical labor, no matter how necessary or arduous. This in turn skews how people are supposed to choose work. Again, markets have not led to our nation filling all of its necessary jobs. Markets only focus on the financial (extrinsic) rewards for a position.

Effort, although not a perfect solution, allows for a fair system of compensation based on the nature of the work and the individual's own time and sacrifice in performing the work. It does compensate all work, however. The work must be agreed upon as socially desireable or useful (no ranking of usefulness). Jobs aren't everything, remember. If you want to put a lot of effort into something that is not agreed upon by the community, you can, but you won't be paid for it. Much like this blog which must count for who knows how many hours worth of writing.

Measuring effort is not a utopian idea. We do it regularly in schools and jobs. Besides counting hours of work we get to know, roughly, our coworkers' or classmates' strengths and abilities along with their weaknesses. We can take hours of work and the communally agreed upon difficulty of the work as a base for effort. Albert suggests that for study intensive work (like doctors) the investment should be counted during the study, for which the student would be paid. So a janitor or a construction worker might receive more pay because of the physical difficulty and sacrifice, but how many people are willing to do that work for their entire working lives compared to the work of a doctor? If you are paid to study medicine, why not take more enjoyable work at less pay? You will also likely be able to enjoy working at a reasonably similar pace for a longer time.

Effort's moral basis is up for discussion. I believe that the difficulty of one's labor should be counted instead of the marginal productivity. Production should not be a goal in itself. Our current system is run on this principle - produce more to consume more. It is not a sustainable system. Focusing on effort may shift attention to ecological concerns like finding better methods of production that are not necessarily more productive, but do not ruin local land. Although a topic for future discussions, I really believe that we need an industrious revolution whereby we work harder, more harmoniously with nature, with democratic control of our labor while producing less. An example of this can be found in sericulture in Tokagawa era Japan. Discuss amongst yourselves.