I agree with Bryan Caplan’s Open Borders. America has nothing to lose and everything to gain by reforming immigration laws to common sense policy: If an individual is not a criminal in his country and has a sponsor (an employer or family member who is a citizen), then let them come. More producers will create more demand—this is basically Say’s Law.
Whether or not more or less redistribution takes place will not discourage immigrants from being productive in their new country and more workers means a higher GDP year over year.
the author is not claiming there's a dichotomy, just implying efforts and energy (of say policy makers, journalists, etc.) should proportionately favor advocating for and enabling abundance over redistribution
That’s more a result of redistribution being currently tied to equality. If redistribution were done for the purpose of growth then they wouldn’t be opposed to each other.
I support skill-based immigration policies and have written about it, but I do not see it as a "redistributionist" policy.
I see redistribution as taking away money or some other material good from one group of people and giving it to another group who typically have less money.
I think that the issue is that government policy is far more about redistribution than promoting economic growth. Given how important long-term economic growth is (even for the beneficiaries of redistribution), it is a clear misallocation of resources.
That is not what redistributionist means. Otherwise, all government programs are considered redistributionist. Public goods are by definition not redistributive.
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, anti-poverty programs are what is typically meant by “redistributive.”
I agree. I thought my initial comment made that clear. Redistribution, for the goal of equality, leads to bad outcomes. I was trying to clarify that does not mean “government spending money to try to improve people’s lives” also leads to bad outcomes. It does not. It leads to prosperity so long as government sticks to spending money on things it is good at.
I don’t disagree with you, except that if “ government sticks to spending money on things it is good at,” it would probably lead to a dramatic decrease in government spending. Government seems to get less effective with every decade.
Indeed. The evidence shows that inequality harms growth and redistributive policies can boost growth by solving the social instability and educational harm that comes from inequality. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
"Solving social instability and educational harm" is not the same as promoting long-term economic growth.
I am very skeptical of the argument that redistribution inherently promotes long-term economic growth. At the very least, it is a very cost-ineffective means to do so.
I agree that redistribution does not "matter," but neither is it much of a obstacle to Abundance. In addition to cost-benefit based regulation that KT are advocating, there are three big things that woud unleash much faster growth: merit based immigration, increase revenues to lower deficits, freer trade. None of these is necessarily anti-redistributive.
I generally sympathise with the long-termist approach of prioritising growth over redistribution, well expressed here by Tabarrok and elsewhere by Cowen (Though I think this article clearly expresses much more his own view than either Klein's or Thompson's.) But I would also warn libertarians against taking this way of thinking too far. There are genuine trade-offs here. People who suffer from severe yet alleviable deprivation today should not be viewed simply as unfortunate eggs to be broken for the sake of an abundant omelette in the far future.
Looks like Maxwell deleted my previous comment arguing that he has made a logical error in this piece. Just FYI, there are high standards around here if you want your comments to stay up!
While I agree with most of what Max writes, I find that odd that he concentrates entirely on redistribution. In my reading of the Abundance redistribution is a minor player in the problem. The problem that KT writes mostly about are the systemic blocks to progress from laws like NEPA and zoning requirements that inhibit growth.
A second knit was what Max writes is found in the paragraph on public education. I like how Noah Smith hearkens back to FDR's appeal to patriotism when he said you deserve a house because you're an American. To that I would say you deserve a public education because you're an American whether you're rich or poor.
I have not read their book yet, but it does seem like the authors are dancing near the lines of what is considered morally objectionable by those on the Left while trying to reassure the potential supporters that they are not doing so.
Half of the federal budget is already spent on transfers to individuals and government transfers make up 40% of the income of people in the bottom 20th percentile of household income."
The link here includes medicare and medicaid spending which you are saying are "transfers to individuals." How do you see those as "transfers to individuals"? I thought they were reimbursements paid for medical services provided to individuals which is a very different thing both in accounting and in people's experience.
It must be noted that Medicare and Medicaid are very different things that superficially look the same because of the end result. Medicare is a program in which one contributes throughout their lifetime to a fund from which to draw when old. Medicaid is purely a redistribution of income from the wealthy to the poor.
Hmm. If medicare doesn't work like that what was that "medicare" deduction that was listed on every paycheck I got through my life?
As for "to an individual", since I am on medicare I can say that when I go to the doctor and receive treatment, I get a subsequent notification that informs me of the amount I would have paid as having been paid. So, yeah, the money didn't go to me, but it was money that would have come from me as an individual so it doesn't really seem any different in practice.
I agree with Bryan Caplan’s Open Borders. America has nothing to lose and everything to gain by reforming immigration laws to common sense policy: If an individual is not a criminal in his country and has a sponsor (an employer or family member who is a citizen), then let them come. More producers will create more demand—this is basically Say’s Law.
Whether or not more or less redistribution takes place will not discourage immigrants from being productive in their new country and more workers means a higher GDP year over year.
This is a false dichotomy. You can have both redistribution and economic growth.
the author is not claiming there's a dichotomy, just implying efforts and energy (of say policy makers, journalists, etc.) should proportionately favor advocating for and enabling abundance over redistribution
True. However, the more redistribution you have, the less economic growth.
That’s more a result of redistribution being currently tied to equality. If redistribution were done for the purpose of growth then they wouldn’t be opposed to each other.
Can you give me an example of a successful government program of “redistribution for the purpose of growth?”
High skilled immigration is the best example, e.g all of the tech CEOs coming from India. Not too many others have been so successful.
I support skill-based immigration policies and have written about it, but I do not see it as a "redistributionist" policy.
I see redistribution as taking away money or some other material good from one group of people and giving it to another group who typically have less money.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/we-need-a-skills-based-immigration
That would still be the government trying to pick winners and losers.
I think that the issue is that government policy is far more about redistribution than promoting economic growth. Given how important long-term economic growth is (even for the beneficiaries of redistribution), it is a clear misallocation of resources.
The government building the interstate system, providing education to all, and funding basic research is not picking winners.
Nor is it redistribution.
The government is redistributing private money to public goods. What else would you call it?
That is not what redistributionist means. Otherwise, all government programs are considered redistributionist. Public goods are by definition not redistributive.
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, anti-poverty programs are what is typically meant by “redistributive.”
https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-to-public-policy/redistributive-policies
I agree. I thought my initial comment made that clear. Redistribution, for the goal of equality, leads to bad outcomes. I was trying to clarify that does not mean “government spending money to try to improve people’s lives” also leads to bad outcomes. It does not. It leads to prosperity so long as government sticks to spending money on things it is good at.
I don’t disagree with you, except that if “ government sticks to spending money on things it is good at,” it would probably lead to a dramatic decrease in government spending. Government seems to get less effective with every decade.
Indeed. The evidence shows that inequality harms growth and redistributive policies can boost growth by solving the social instability and educational harm that comes from inequality. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
"Solving social instability and educational harm" is not the same as promoting long-term economic growth.
I am very skeptical of the argument that redistribution inherently promotes long-term economic growth. At the very least, it is a very cost-ineffective means to do so.
I agree that redistribution does not "matter," but neither is it much of a obstacle to Abundance. In addition to cost-benefit based regulation that KT are advocating, there are three big things that woud unleash much faster growth: merit based immigration, increase revenues to lower deficits, freer trade. None of these is necessarily anti-redistributive.
Why is lower deficits a growth driver? If the thing you are investing in is > the cost of the debt you should take on infinite debt.
I generally sympathise with the long-termist approach of prioritising growth over redistribution, well expressed here by Tabarrok and elsewhere by Cowen (Though I think this article clearly expresses much more his own view than either Klein's or Thompson's.) But I would also warn libertarians against taking this way of thinking too far. There are genuine trade-offs here. People who suffer from severe yet alleviable deprivation today should not be viewed simply as unfortunate eggs to be broken for the sake of an abundant omelette in the far future.
Looks like Maxwell deleted my previous comment arguing that he has made a logical error in this piece. Just FYI, there are high standards around here if you want your comments to stay up!
While I agree with most of what Max writes, I find that odd that he concentrates entirely on redistribution. In my reading of the Abundance redistribution is a minor player in the problem. The problem that KT writes mostly about are the systemic blocks to progress from laws like NEPA and zoning requirements that inhibit growth.
A second knit was what Max writes is found in the paragraph on public education. I like how Noah Smith hearkens back to FDR's appeal to patriotism when he said you deserve a house because you're an American. To that I would say you deserve a public education because you're an American whether you're rich or poor.
> I suspect that this is also what the authors would claim as closest to their actual views if they were presented with this post.
Did you not give them an opportunity to comment?
I have not read their book yet, but it does seem like the authors are dancing near the lines of what is considered morally objectionable by those on the Left while trying to reassure the potential supporters that they are not doing so.
Half of the federal budget is already spent on transfers to individuals and government transfers make up 40% of the income of people in the bottom 20th percentile of household income."
The link here includes medicare and medicaid spending which you are saying are "transfers to individuals." How do you see those as "transfers to individuals"? I thought they were reimbursements paid for medical services provided to individuals which is a very different thing both in accounting and in people's experience.
It must be noted that Medicare and Medicaid are very different things that superficially look the same because of the end result. Medicare is a program in which one contributes throughout their lifetime to a fund from which to draw when old. Medicaid is purely a redistribution of income from the wealthy to the poor.
Not how Medicare works, but it should also be noted that neither of these is a government transfer *to an individual*
Hmm. If medicare doesn't work like that what was that "medicare" deduction that was listed on every paycheck I got through my life?
As for "to an individual", since I am on medicare I can say that when I go to the doctor and receive treatment, I get a subsequent notification that informs me of the amount I would have paid as having been paid. So, yeah, the money didn't go to me, but it was money that would have come from me as an individual so it doesn't really seem any different in practice.