One of the arguments against decentralized decision-making is that it's too selfish. There's no collective action. There's no community. When the government does stuff, it's collective and thereforeâso goes the argumentâthere's an opportunity for everyone to be acting on everyone else's behalf.
These arguments have always struck me as strange. There's lots of collective action, it just isn't coerced. And I've never understood the "community" created by taxation.
The romantic vision of government created community is getting exposed a bit under the Obama plan to increase spending by a trillion or so for the bottom 98% financed by the top 25. When I suggested earlier that this wasn't an ideal situation for a democracy, some commenters responded that the top 2% had plenty of money so what was the big deal.
Of course taxing the top 2% to finance consumption of the bottom 98% isn't exactly the community that progressives usually invoke. But it's interesting to see the lovely effects of such a scheme. Michelle Singletary at the Washington Post isn't too happy about it:
written to me complaining that they aren't directly benefiting from the
federal government's efforts to resuscitate our gasping economy.
The sniveling sentiments of these people come down to one question: "What about me?"
"How come only those who spend irresponsibly get bailed out?" a
reader asked. "As a person who thinks before he spends, I have a lot to
be frustrated about these days."
Another reader from Indiana wrote: "Frankly, I'm infuriated. I don't
make a ton of money, but I live within my means. I purchased my home
eight years ago and just paid my mortgage off this past November. It's
extremely frustrating to see us bailing out people who made foolish
decisions while many others meet the obligations they agreed to."
Singletary continues later:
These people are suffering from what I call "WAM Syndrome" or "What About Me?" disease.
My children have WAM. I see them looking as I pour juice or cut a piece
of pie. They watch closely to see whether their siblings get more. If I
give one child a little extra of something, the other two pout and
whimper, "What about me?"
But I expect this from children. They often don't understand that
sometimes one person — whether he or she deserves it or not — will
get more. They can't comprehend that life isn't fair.
Am I frustrated that my investment accounts are significantly down? You'd better believe I am.
Am I upset that my home value has dropped? You betcha.
However, why are you grousing that you aren't getting money or a tax break if you don't truly need the help?
It's a fair question. Let me try to answer it. It is perfectly normal to try to use the power of the state to exploit others. And when you see others getting goodies, it's natural to wonder why others are benefiting and you are not. And when we protect people from their bad decisions, we treat them like children. Not surprisingly, such public policy creates child-like behavior.
Singletary continues:
Several readers have complained that they can't take advantage of the
new $8,000 first-time home buyer's credit. This is an improvement on a
$7,500 tax credit that is really a 15-year, interest-free loan.
Margaret, a first-time home buyer from Massachusetts, said she was
outraged that some people will benefit from the $8,000 tax credit,
which doesn't have to be paid back.
"I am a single woman who has worked long and hard to finally
purchase a home," she wrote. "I purchased a home on July 30, 2008, and
await my $7,500 interest-free loan. I was thrilled and grateful that
this was offered to me."
After learning about the better tax break, Margaret is no longer grateful.
"I am totally disgusted. I would like justification and an answer to
how this administration can justify doing for some and not for all,"
she wrote. "If you do for one, you must do for all. After all, this is
America."
Singletary thinks Margaret should suck it up and be glad she has a house.
But I think Margaret is on to something. The constant bailing out of this group but not that one is bound to lead to resentment and feelings of unfairness. Or as the progressives promised, feelings of community. But there is little unity in such community.
Share
{ 40 comments }
The irony is that the WAM requests are usually directed at the supposed unfairness of the free-market.
Unit you are right and now we have to endure the socialists telling us this gem "They often don't understand that sometimes one person — whether he or she deserves it or not — will get more. They can't comprehend that life isn't fair"
I would say this is one thing socialists and their childish constituencies have never understood. The justification of all their coercive, redistributionist schemes is to correct "life's unfairness".
Most people who are complaining against the bail outs don't really want anything for them, they just don't want their hard earned money stolen to bail out irresponsibility.
Personally, if I ever invoke the "WAM" argument it is usually as the "Forgotten Man" (that is Person C who is being robbed by Person A to give something to Person B).
It seems a reasonable question to ask. What about me? Why should I be robbed?
I have no desire (or need) for any hand outs. I'd rather work for my living.
I think progressives would argue that WAM is caused by wealth disparity and only enacting half-measures toward their ideal role of government. The only problem with that argument is that naturally leads us all down that long windy road…
It's not a great leap for WAM to extend to wealth obtained in the "free" market, since government regulators are willing to pick winners and losers for the right price. The losers arguably have a moral claim to the winner's profits in such circumstances. Hence, it's not surprising to see politicians exercise that claim (real or perceived) on their contributors' behalf and pick up some votes in the process.
How the public and most "intellectuals" fail to acknowledge government's ever increasing meddling in the "free market" is a complete mystery to me. Hopefully it's the same mind-control technology that's keeping the whole economy from collapsing. Perhaps Bush didn't clearly explain it to Obama.
The real mistake in Singletary's incredibly smug juice-pouring example is the metaphorical relationship it assumes between citizens and the state.
Yes, we are children waiting to be poured our share of the juice from our beneficent parents, namely Congress and Obama. The analogy is sickening.
"The constant bailing out of this group but not that one is bound to lead to resentment and feelings of unfairness."
The problem precedes the bailouts. There is no doubt a class war and the wealthy are winning it handily by exerting their power over those in the government. Wall Street was yelling WAM for years via their high priced lobbyist and getting every rule and decision made in their favor. From the repeal of Glass-Steagall to favorable interest rates to changes in bankruptcy laws and on and on…
They got every thing they needed to create the latest and greatest asset bubble to suck the last bit of savings from the middle class. They came out way on top and they got bailout money 10 to 1 compared to the other 98%.
WAM a problem and until we recognize that lobbyist contributing to campaigns is a clear violation and conflict of interest nothing will change.
George, the point has been made clearly many times. It's the ability and authority of government to manipulate the market, FOR ANYBODY'S BENEFIT, that brings the lobbyists to the centers of power.
IOW, government interventions in the market make it more profitable for industry to lobby congress than to improve their productivity.
Labor often supports this lobbying because their jobs are at stake as well.
Your comment illustrates that you have not gotten the point. You seem to think we free marketers don't understand your point, but it is obvious to us that you have not got at the root of the problem.
Of course businesses, and other moneyed interests, being as they are manifestations of human action, respond to incentives and threats. This the nature of the human beast.
The only thing that can be done about this is to remove the opportunity in its entirety.
But you don't like the answer because the superficiality of your interpretation of the problem leads you to a superficial solution: special interests influence politics, so just make it illegal.
Not gonna work.
BTW, you sure have a thing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
How do you know that there lies the cause of our problems?
Have you no thoughts on monetary and credit expansion by the FED?
Is the FED exempt from your critique because your favored political class supports it?
"The only thing that can be done about this is to remove the opportunity in its entirety."
Gee Sam, is that the reason for the 2nd Amendment? It is time for Libertarian to rise up under the leadership of Militia General vidyohs (who studied the tactics of Pinochet) to destroy government? (It'd sure get more done than trying to wish government away.)
Singletary's analogy to his children and their fruit juice is a false one, and a bit inflammatory.
Anyone who has worked for what they have is going to resent others who slop out of the government trough. It's a natural response.
They also aren't going to automatically think that those getting the freebies are in a sad situation through no fault of their own because they know that most people who need government assistance have made poor choices in their lives. Some may truly deserve help, but that needs to be established with evidence not knee jerk assumptions.
I guess they dont teach the principle of moral hazard any longer in school. meh… government schools wouldnt be interested in teaching this antiquated concept, I presume.
Gee Sam, is that the reason for the 2nd Amendment? – Gil
If you've read any of the writings of the Founders, you know the answer to your question.
I love it! I had worried that it might take twenty years before people realized that it's not just the top 2% that are getting screwed. Now Singletary and other lefties are trying to persuade us by calling us children. Please Mr. Singletary, keep it up.
Gil,
What, exactly, do you think I said and meant?
What do I think should be removed?
Is there only one way to do that that you can think of?
Under communist idealism, the government will take excess production from the individual and reallocate it where there is excess need.
To put this ideal into practice, the government needs individuals to report not only their production (income) but also their need (consumption). The latter has been elusive here in the US.
Our new bailout culture is getting us closer, however. Today already we report our consumption in certain key areas: we report our mortgage consumption to qualify for deductions and new benefits; we report part of our our child care and medical consumption for FSA programs, etc. Soon we will also report our entire medical consumption when it falls to the government to provide it.
We're getting to the point where the government can measure the "basic consumption" level of each individual, and as new programs are added, the basic consumption levels are rising. The "excess production" level is meantime being reduced through higher tax burdens on overproduction.
I am not sure how narrow the gap can be before the effects of social disincentives start to kick in. I assume it is marginal, meaning marginally narrowing the gap causes marginal discincentive behavior.
It seems like we are taking some big steps though. Dangerously so.
To quote you Sam:
"the point has been made clearly many times. It's the ability and authority of government to manipulate the market, FOR ANYBODY'S BENEFIT, that brings the lobbyists to the centers of power.
IOW, government interventions in the market make it more profitable for industry to lobby congress than to improve their productivity."
Since Libertarians see the government as a theiving institution to hand out special favours then, yes, Libertarians shoulld see the answer as abolishing the government.
@Gil – libertarians think of the government as it should be thought of – an entity that is composed of those people who have a self-interest for keeping their jobs and are just as clueless on alot of things as we all are.
The problem is that the people in government dont think that way. They think that just by being inside gives them supreme knowledge and wisdom. This isnt true inside or outside the State.
But those in government have no intellectual honesty. If the president or a congressman ever got up and stated, "Hey, I dont know how to run a farm, so I am going to leave it to the farmers to run their own market," he would be excoriated for some unknown reason. But for what? Being honest? Stating simple, humble facts?
The founders of our country knew this simple truth – those in government are just as clueless as everyone else. Thus, limit the impact of those clueless leaders so that they cannot cause misery for everyone. My, how we have strayed….
Person A and Person B have the same opportunities from the world, both from the private economy and from the government.
Person A studies hard through high school, takes the difficult classes, has an eye for college and a career, and stays out of any trouble that would affect his reputation and efforts of achieving his ends. He chooses a college, picks the difficult rather than easy courses, pursues a major with an eye toward compensation, studies hard, gets high grades and good recommendations. He then goes on to do postgraduate work earning little money for 7 years of hard training and long hours, with an eye toward deferred gratification. Finally he succeeds in achieving his ends successfully, has built a strong reputation and a valuable skill set. He enters the market with the expected rewards.
Person B does none of those things. As is his right in a free society, he instead chooses enjoyment of life and family. While young he gets a little wild in his enjoyment of life and his reputation in some ways suffers from it. He takes an easier and shorter road, and decides that it was a trade-off worth the benefits for the more pleasing lifestyle.
6 months into Person A's career a new political administration comes in and says the Person A benefited unfairly from the past 10 years and so is going to pay dearly and have another 20% of his income forcibly confiscated from him and given to Person B.
Tell me, ye Robin Hoods, how is this a an socially preferable scenario than just telling people who want a higher income to follow Person A's course instead of Person B's (as though people don't already know)? Why wouldn't you instead have the government confiscate the years of savings and private life from Person B and give it to the person who is poorer in both–Person A?
muirgeo on 02/02/09 @ 12:49:01 AM
"The problem precedes the bailouts."
Correct; it began with The New Deal and continued with The Great Society.
"WAM a problem and until we recognize that lobbyist contributing to campaigns is a clear violation and conflict of interest nothing will change."
Them, the current administration headed by the Tabula Rasa, acknowledge the problems lobbyists inflict.
That is unless you're the SEIU, NEA, ACORN, or one of the many individuals pledging money (pledge early, pledge often) over the internet to the Tabula Rasa's campaign by the use of untraceable pre-paid credit cards.
Yep, these are the guys and gals that will stop corruption cold.
WAM a problem and until we recognize that lobbyist contributing to campaigns is a clear violation and conflict of interest nothing will change.
Funny, I find a conflict of interests begins when someone with an egalitarian complex promises to uphold a Constitution designed around property rights.
No lobbyist is violating an oath of office. If you think lobbying corrupts, then stop electing people who can be bought — or redefine the job to something not worth buying.
Funny, A guy I work with the other day was complaining about the stimulus, not out of how much it will cost, but that there was nothing in the plan that would benefit him. My boss echoed these sentiments the other day. HA!
I'm tired of this argument. Those in power have crossed the line. We are telling them that they have crossed the line but they aren't listening. They think that our disenfranchisement is justified by their lofty vision. It isn't. End of discussion. Its time for Tea Parties, Strikes, and if necessary, Revolution.
Does Singletary not realize that when he gives an extra cookie to one child he really *is* wronging the other one? This isn't a matter of "life's not fair," it's a matter of "parents aren't fair, and they're too lazy and capricious to take the claims of children seriously." He treats his kids unfairly and then accuses us of childishness for wanting at least some measure of justice?
@galt – re: elect those that cannot be bought. The fundamental problem is not that people in government are corrupt per se – its that the people serve their own self-interest first and foremost. Its not in a government officials self-interest to eliminate a government job since he wants to work along with everyone else. This, despite the fact that the job may be causing great problems within the economy (hey Mr. Bernanke are you listening?).
Thus, government will never contract and only expand. In fact, historically speaking, people have never seen an increase in freedom or liberty outside the use of violent means. It is much too late for this government I think, it crossed the Rubicon in 1971 (or maybe 1913).
âLife is not fair⦠but we must all proceed with the faith that over the course of all our lives, it will be more or less equally unfair to all of us.â
http://occamsrazr.com/2007/04/04/fairness/
How Ms. Singletary can read…
…and come to the conclusion that this person suffers from "what about me" syndrome is beyond me. This person hasn't asked for anything, except not to be robbed.
The failure of the "community", "collective" or socialist fantasy is that it always assumes that the productive citizens will continue to play by the rules while the "community" system rewards those who don't. In the short term that may actually happen but over extended periods of time those closest to the bottom (even in a "community" economy will give up and join the non-productive class. The soviet system collapsed because ultimately there were too few productive members to support the growing non-productive. As Lech Walesa was so famously quoted on the soviet system – "Yes we all had jobs. But they pretended to pay us and we pretended to work."
Gil,
Work on your reading comprehension.
What I said was:"The only thing that can be done about this is to remove the opportunity in its entirety."
The opportunity comes from having government regulate our economic activities.
I said nothing about having government prohibit fraud and aggression and enforce contracts, activities which libertarians believe are legitimate functions of government.
The problems come when you create incentives for businessmen to influence the political apparatus to advance their own interests. These incentives appear when you authorize political agency to regulate the economy.
So I'm calling "Straw man" on you.
Under communist idealism, the government will take excess production from the individual and reallocate it where there is excess need. – Herman
A nitpick: The communist ideal is that each individual dumps the fruits of his labour into a warehouse from which others take as needed. That's when society has progressed beyond socialism to true communism. That's how stupid the fantasy actually got. Of course, man would have to be a completely different creature and tens of millions have died in the attempt to remake man. Wouldn't you know it? Each person is born just as acquisitive and self-interested as the generation before and the re-education efforts must start all over again.
But, you're right, Herman. We're well on our way to "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Unfortunately, every time it has been tried nobody has worked to their ability and only the small group of thugs known as "government" ever got what they needed.
That crash of 1929 happened during the first year of Hoover administration. Hoover then went on to make it worse. This one happened mostly in the last year of Bush, and Bush and later Obama made it worse.
Stock market had bottomed 9 months before FDR came to power. I think Dow could go as low as 4000, may be a little more. Earnings will be nonexistent. At market bottoms, PEs will be very low. Given the projected earnings, stocks look expensive.
Obama's is likely to be a 1 term presidency.
These people are suffering from what I call "WAM Syndrome" or "What About Me?" disease.
100% wrong. These people are complaining that they are being robbed to help people who did it to themselves, and she is pretending they just want a hand out. Shame on her for such smug intellectual dishonesty. I hope she chokes.
Juan C. de Cardenas's makes a great point that Singletary missed: "Most people who are complaining against the bail outs don't really want anything for them, they just don't want their hard earned money stolen to bail out irresponsibility."
Bingo! Singletary misrepresents most of the "WAM"-complaining as people complaining about being left out, when they're really complaining about being forced to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
I've noticed a pattern. Muirduck does hit n' run posting. He never sticks around to defend his spewings.
Seth – if you don't bail out these people they'll end up on welfare anyways.
Trolls and spam? Lovely.
"Obama's is likely to be a 1 term presidency."
Maybe a large Middle Eastern war will develop and Obama will get reelected by promising to keep us out of it. It worked for FDR.
"Seth – if you don't bail out these people they'll end up on welfare anyways."
If true, and it probably is (didn't the pork-n-spend weaken the 90s welfare reforms?), the complaint of being forced to subsidize irresponsible behavior is still valid. Though, I might argue that it's more efficient to fund one government bureacracy than two.
Seth – another thing is that it'd be cheaper to put those people on welfare then subsidize their mortgages.
I heard of a commune where no major decisions could be made without everyone there to vote on them.
When I came time to harvest, they were unable to get enough people to vote on whether to harvest.
That's when the commune failed.
Sam – that sounds like the Soviet Union! Wasn't the United States sending wheat to the USSR during the 1970s?
After the communist revolution, the Soviet Union went from being an exporter of wheat to an importer.
{ 1 trackback }