Spot on. We spend our time arguing over various woke and anti woke policies and simple reforms in things like occupational licensing reform get zero attention.
"If you’re still doubtful, think about how many popular books, movies, and TV shows’ central conflict is primarily about economic growth. Approximately zero, right? "
It's worse than that. Popular culture often propagates the zero-sum myth.
Even more important is what accrues status and power within organizations. If advocating for growth accrues these things, people best able to realize this growth are selected for in positions of power. Currently, we have quite the opposite ...
"The potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production."
On a related note, I've had trouble finding clear empirical evidence that free market capitalism is net beneficial to the poor (by way of economic growth). Nearly everything I read treats the claim as either obviously true or obviously false, depending on their politics. I lean toward believing it, but that's based only on theoretical argument.
I'd be very grateful if someone here could point me to a solid empirical analysis.
Assuming that there is in fact a policy change available to be discussed that would increase growth. It seems to always be the same old recycled trickle down every time. Meanwhile the private sector will be working hard to produce growth regardless of public debate. Most of it per capita will come from the advance in science and engineering. I've been told by economists that people have infinite desires. Why would a more distributive policy change that. It might even facilitate it.
Bryan, could you please define "equity" as you used the term in your article? I have never been able to get a straight answer from progressives what this term really means--they will often deny equity means equality of result.
Shouldn't you also be considering possible causality in the opposite direction, i.e. that the more a populace perceives itself to be equitable, the less it may be distracted away from the objectively best policies by equity concerns?
Excellent post; this might be worth assigning to students as an example of opportunity cost.
Small correction: "What fraction of these public debates have any clear connection to economic growth? 5%? 10%? So even if we randomly selected reforms, the U.S. polity would, on average, only adopt one growth reform every five or ten years."
Also, even if true, on this model the framing "Anyone who promotes equity reforms automatically impedes growth reforms" seems a bit misleading.
Really, the conclusion is that: anyone who supports any major public policies *besides* growth impedes growth. It applies just as strongly to people who promotes reforming the military, reducing homelessness, reforming the criminal justice system etc.. etc.. To focus narrowly on just this one tension seems to suggest that these two concerns are particularly in tension. A conclusion that this model doesn't support.
Except that model assumes that the kind of policies which draw public support claiming to increase growth *actually* increase growth. I'm not sure if policies the public believes increase growth aren't actually usually harmful (consider the inclination among the public to protectionism, to giving bailouts to national champions etc.. etc..). Indeed, if you assume that there is literally no interaction between the two kinds of proposals it might actually *help* growth by distracting the public from the growth issues and allowing the experts to have a greater say relative to the general public on matters that affect growth.
The obvious question to ask as an economist is where the margin is. Suppose you know some people who are high up in a political party with a lot of bad ideas about redistribution via taxes, and if implemented these ideas would decrease national production by quantity A. You think that by haranguing these acquaintances, you can convince them with some X% probability of reform package Y, which is unrelated to taxation and would improve the country's productive capacity by B. There is an alternative political party whose politicies would cause C change in national production (for fun, consider the case where A<C<B). At what values of A, B, C, X, and Y is it worth supporting this party over the alternative? There likely isn't some satisfying mathematical answer, but I guess my point is just to say that if redistribution is a distraction, in some cases you'd be justified in ignoring bad redistributive ideas in favor of only worrying about who would be interested in your bigger picture growth-maximizing ideas.
Correct me if I'm wrong but some things can do both. Like your case on immigration, or perhaps a repeal of zoning laws; as I would assume that does enrich certain age groups at the expense of younger groups ('the boomers stole our millennial future' does seem to be a battle cry of the young left).
Why do we need massive public debate to pass reforms? Probably because all reforms are, to some degree, redistributive.
By "growth" reforms, you must mean reforms optimized to increase growth (not reforms that only affect growth). And the reason they are hard to pass is that they do have redistributive side effects.
Spot on. We spend our time arguing over various woke and anti woke policies and simple reforms in things like occupational licensing reform get zero attention.
"If you’re still doubtful, think about how many popular books, movies, and TV shows’ central conflict is primarily about economic growth. Approximately zero, right? "
It's worse than that. Popular culture often propagates the zero-sum myth.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxKLSmXs7-SlvLb4ETkfvE-USptss6gbAj
Even more important is what accrues status and power within organizations. If advocating for growth accrues these things, people best able to realize this growth are selected for in positions of power. Currently, we have quite the opposite ...
If most reforms are bad, then crowding them out with one that does nothing at all is actually good.
"The potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production."
On a related note, I've had trouble finding clear empirical evidence that free market capitalism is net beneficial to the poor (by way of economic growth). Nearly everything I read treats the claim as either obviously true or obviously false, depending on their politics. I lean toward believing it, but that's based only on theoretical argument.
I'd be very grateful if someone here could point me to a solid empirical analysis.
Assuming that there is in fact a policy change available to be discussed that would increase growth. It seems to always be the same old recycled trickle down every time. Meanwhile the private sector will be working hard to produce growth regardless of public debate. Most of it per capita will come from the advance in science and engineering. I've been told by economists that people have infinite desires. Why would a more distributive policy change that. It might even facilitate it.
brilliant
You write so clearly. Any books or articles you'd recommend on writing well. Or any you've written?
Bryan, could you please define "equity" as you used the term in your article? I have never been able to get a straight answer from progressives what this term really means--they will often deny equity means equality of result.
Shouldn't you also be considering possible causality in the opposite direction, i.e. that the more a populace perceives itself to be equitable, the less it may be distracted away from the objectively best policies by equity concerns?
Excellent post; this might be worth assigning to students as an example of opportunity cost.
Small correction: "What fraction of these public debates have any clear connection to economic growth? 5%? 10%? So even if we randomly selected reforms, the U.S. polity would, on average, only adopt one growth reform every five or ten years."
Did you mean every every ten or twenty years?
Also, even if true, on this model the framing "Anyone who promotes equity reforms automatically impedes growth reforms" seems a bit misleading.
Really, the conclusion is that: anyone who supports any major public policies *besides* growth impedes growth. It applies just as strongly to people who promotes reforming the military, reducing homelessness, reforming the criminal justice system etc.. etc.. To focus narrowly on just this one tension seems to suggest that these two concerns are particularly in tension. A conclusion that this model doesn't support.
Except that model assumes that the kind of policies which draw public support claiming to increase growth *actually* increase growth. I'm not sure if policies the public believes increase growth aren't actually usually harmful (consider the inclination among the public to protectionism, to giving bailouts to national champions etc.. etc..). Indeed, if you assume that there is literally no interaction between the two kinds of proposals it might actually *help* growth by distracting the public from the growth issues and allowing the experts to have a greater say relative to the general public on matters that affect growth.
The obvious question to ask as an economist is where the margin is. Suppose you know some people who are high up in a political party with a lot of bad ideas about redistribution via taxes, and if implemented these ideas would decrease national production by quantity A. You think that by haranguing these acquaintances, you can convince them with some X% probability of reform package Y, which is unrelated to taxation and would improve the country's productive capacity by B. There is an alternative political party whose politicies would cause C change in national production (for fun, consider the case where A<C<B). At what values of A, B, C, X, and Y is it worth supporting this party over the alternative? There likely isn't some satisfying mathematical answer, but I guess my point is just to say that if redistribution is a distraction, in some cases you'd be justified in ignoring bad redistributive ideas in favor of only worrying about who would be interested in your bigger picture growth-maximizing ideas.
Correct me if I'm wrong but some things can do both. Like your case on immigration, or perhaps a repeal of zoning laws; as I would assume that does enrich certain age groups at the expense of younger groups ('the boomers stole our millennial future' does seem to be a battle cry of the young left).
Why do we need massive public debate to pass reforms? Probably because all reforms are, to some degree, redistributive.
By "growth" reforms, you must mean reforms optimized to increase growth (not reforms that only affect growth). And the reason they are hard to pass is that they do have redistributive side effects.