Trayvon Martin and Keynesian Multipliers
Pundits, websites, and news programs had very predictable opinions on the guilt of Zimmerman based on their view about Keynesian multipliers. Those that favor more redistribution, more governmental spending and regulation overwhelmingly sided with Trayvon Martin, the deceased African-American. Clearly that's not a coincidence, but reflects something deeper, mainly a peculiar groupishness.
Now, if basically prejudices drive reason as opposed to vice versa: what's the most basic belief there? It's not obvious our beliefs on fiscal policy and criminal justice would be almost perfectly correlated. Jonathan Haidt wrote a great book on moral confabulations, but I don't think his 6 foundations of political thought help here. For example, both think their side is 'fair', just for different reasons. Instead, I think it's people choosing in-groups vs. outgroups, the basic building block of multilevel selection theory outline by David Sloan Wilson. Thus Harvard elites and don't mind quotas because,as Harvard grads, they will get the good jobs anyway. Those in elite positions don't mind quotas, get the support of quota recipients, and can portray themselves as progressive; those in the middle look like selfish bigots, and they lose.
Ultimately, via the logic of Hotelling's median voter theory, there are two teams, and while they are somewhat inconsistent in their beliefs (free choice in abortions, but not employment or insurance) these beliefs form the most basic coarsening of a set of two self-interested groups. Everyone likes their team, and want power at the expense of those on the other side. It's Lenin's Who, Whom?
Marx's historical dialectic class struggle was profoundly wrong: it has never been simply poor vs. rich, but rather complex coalitions that interweave, because rich need the numbers of the poor and the poor need the capital and skill of the rich. Think about academic elites and the really poor: they are both heavily Democratic. It clearly isn't just rich vs. poor.
Of course, this also means most debates about the multiplier are pointless because if I can predict whether you think the multiplier is large based on your beliefs about Zimmerman's guilt, the real issue has not much to do with econometrics. If you are doing objective work on multipliers, remember no one expects details to be dispositive, the narrative will drive what facts are seen as irrelevant or essential.
Now, if basically prejudices drive reason as opposed to vice versa: what's the most basic belief there? It's not obvious our beliefs on fiscal policy and criminal justice would be almost perfectly correlated. Jonathan Haidt wrote a great book on moral confabulations, but I don't think his 6 foundations of political thought help here. For example, both think their side is 'fair', just for different reasons. Instead, I think it's people choosing in-groups vs. outgroups, the basic building block of multilevel selection theory outline by David Sloan Wilson. Thus Harvard elites and don't mind quotas because,as Harvard grads, they will get the good jobs anyway. Those in elite positions don't mind quotas, get the support of quota recipients, and can portray themselves as progressive; those in the middle look like selfish bigots, and they lose.
Ultimately, via the logic of Hotelling's median voter theory, there are two teams, and while they are somewhat inconsistent in their beliefs (free choice in abortions, but not employment or insurance) these beliefs form the most basic coarsening of a set of two self-interested groups. Everyone likes their team, and want power at the expense of those on the other side. It's Lenin's Who, Whom?
Marx's historical dialectic class struggle was profoundly wrong: it has never been simply poor vs. rich, but rather complex coalitions that interweave, because rich need the numbers of the poor and the poor need the capital and skill of the rich. Think about academic elites and the really poor: they are both heavily Democratic. It clearly isn't just rich vs. poor.
Of course, this also means most debates about the multiplier are pointless because if I can predict whether you think the multiplier is large based on your beliefs about Zimmerman's guilt, the real issue has not much to do with econometrics. If you are doing objective work on multipliers, remember no one expects details to be dispositive, the narrative will drive what facts are seen as irrelevant or essential.
0 Response to "Trayvon Martin and Keynesian Multipliers"
Post a Comment