January 26, 2003
I agree with Tribune Media columnist Matthew Miller that “free markets” and the resulting skewed distribution of wealth are NOT moral.
As he explains:
If you're a "markets are presumptively moral" type, you're almost certainly in favor of President Bush's previous and proposed tax cuts. Government would simply be giving people their own money back, or "not taxing it twice." Opposition to such simple justice must be motivated by envy or resentment - that is, "class warfare."
If you don't think markets are presumptively moral, you probably oppose the Bush plan. But when Warren Buffet, William Gates Sr., Pete Peterson or Robert Rubin - all of whom would benefit hugely from Bush's tax cuts - oppose them, it's not because they hate, resent or envy "the rich."
Like me, they oppose them because they don't think tax cuts mostly benefiting those already well-off should be a national priority, given what else is on America's unfinished agenda - like insuring the uninsured, bolstering Medicare or recruiting teachers for high-poverty schools. This is especially the case when, moral questions aside, we know that marginal tax rates in the current range are consistent with those that in the 1990s produced the longest economic boom of our era.
And what he says here seems so amazingly clear and true to me:
People like me who say "no" start from a different premise. Markets are an entirely human construct, we say, with an infrastructure of property law, contract law, central banking and myriad other mechanisms devised by the mind of man to serve human purposes and social goals.
We also note the obvious: The distribution of income in free markets is affected dramatically by factors beyond the virtues cited above - such as a person's inherited brains, health, talents, wealth and looks, as well as the family into which one is born and the early schooling one is given.
President Bush, it must be said, is an odd spokesman for the "markets are presumptively moral" school. In Ann Richards' memorable gibe, the president was "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." His personal fortune is a direct result of government subsidies that boosted the value of the Texas Rangers.
It’s Superbowl Sunday. I don’t even know what teams are playing. But then, again, I don’t think football is “presumptively moral” anyway.
Comments now powered by HaloScan. Click here to read this entry's comments (if any), or to post one of your own.
Old Comments (3)
Tricia on 26 Jan 2003
I don't know who's playing either. *laugh* But I do wish one of those big quarterbacks would tackle Bush once or twice! :X
Just wanted to say, I have greatly enjoyed this site, and I will be back for more! Thank for for sharing a piece of yourself! :)
Tom Shugart on 27 Jan 2003
OK--I can't resist being a pest and making some important corrections here. The Texas Rangers play baseball, not football. Quarterbacks are not tacklers--they're not especially big, but they're smart and they direct the offense. The defense does the tackling. Ladies, be careful with your sports metaphors.
And, finally, Ann Richards' famous gibe was directed at Bush the Elder, not W--although, admittedly, she could just as easily have said it about the son.
I know you were dying to have these matters straightened out, but you needn't bother sending thanks if you're too busy.
Elaine on 27 Jan 2003
Heh. I don't use sports metaphors because I know that I don't know what I'm talking about. So, my last comment was just thrown in there because it was Superbowl Sunday and I like the phrase "presumptively moral." Now, Miller's quote is another case. He should have known better, especially about the gibe.