Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman may have trouble finding debate partners who will defend ideological, fundamentalist, fetishist neoliberalism. As a personal favor to the authors, whom I like and respect, I will volunteer to be at least a neoliberal—I hope to be excused from the other labels.
If the publication had asked me to engage with Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman, I would have insisted that first they rewrite their essay to take out all of the boo-words and straw-man accusations. To tolerate below-the-belt intellectual punches because you “like and respect” the perpetrators is to commit a version of the ad hominem fallacy.
Or to boil it down: Don’t feed the trolls.
What “fetishes” do neoliberals have and how do they differ from beliefs that we normal, unbiased people have?
Who pays these people and why?
Easterly, who is great on development economics, is disagreeing with the bad logic arguments against too much market put out by Naidu+, called “market fundamentalism”
There is, quite simply, too much straw-manning going on in this debate. Market fetishism implies laissez faire with no role for government, while market criticism gets unfairly associated with the North Korean approach to inequality. Both sides talk only about the danger in one direction and not the other.
Easterly is good about noting examples where bad gov’t is a disaster, but where “more market”, like in China, has resulted in far more growth. He mentions the positive sum nature of trade, while doing the almost-required anti-Trump critique against a trade war. (No mention of how Trump has made lower tariffs with Canada, Mexico, and the EU — negotiated because of a willingness to increase tariffs. Which hurt the US; but hurt the trade partner far more.)
as Naidu and his co-authors make clear, their real enemy is inequality, and they see fighting it as a moral value. That value is common, but it is not the only one. Some voters also value personal rights and self-determination, while disliking coercion and dictation by others.
I, too, am becoming more concerned about inequality, but other issues remain important.
Now I’m reminded that, on the victim-victimizers axis, with inequality one can become a “victim” at the 50%, 80%, even 90% income level, relative to the huge incomes and wealth of the top 1%, now often the top 0.1%.
As victims become more socially superior, those not in the top 1% can claim victimhood status with such a focus on inequality, and they will do so.
Still, the capital gains tax rates should be as high, or higher, as the income tax rates. Plus there will be increasing calls for land & financial asset wealth taxes.
Somewhat in sync with Tucker Carlson’s Jan. screed.
You’re witnessing the process whereby a word gets “owned” by the targets of a pejorative and is rendered into a badge of pride. Like “Obamacare.” And unlike that one, “neoliberal” doesn’t even sound somewhat inherently insulting. “New liberal.” So?
See Abigail Disney, with some $500 million from inheritance, complain about excessive CEO salary.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/03/heiress-complains-about-my-measly-few.html?showComment=1552251599523#c5481563068187938200
Those of us on the freedom/tyranny axis are often accused of worshiping at the altar of capitalism. I’d really like to know where that altar is located because, given the results around the world and in my own simple life, I’d gladly make a pilgrimage there to burn some incense or sacrifice a cornish hen.