Saturday, February 12, 2011

Are we better off today?

As I have previously blogged like Boyes I work for a publically funded institution of "higher learning". As Dan Klein and others have observed the vast majority of employees of these publically funded institutions are interventionists, statists, and those confident of the state's ability to improve the conditions of life.

A frequently voiced concern of these folks is the deteriorating income level of the poor and middle class and the expansion of income and wealth of the rich.

This debate has been informed by Tyler Cowen's book and, in a recent post, Steve Horowitz reminds us that income levels tell only a part of the tale, if we are legitimately interested in the level of progress and advance in society. While my interventionist friends are indeed concerned with progress and understanding the state of society, for reasons that Boyes and I have previously articulated, they tend to look only at part of the picture, then jump to the preconceived conclusion that to "solve" the "problem" that they see, the state must intervene.

Given their belief system this unfortunate preconceived conclusion is perfectly understandable. With a given belief system that is held by these interventionists as an article of faith, any alternative perspective (whether data driven or not) is viewed with hostility. With the breakdown of a civil discourse in the public, rather than a discussion that might lead to synthesis, an ideological rhetoric is predictably and immediately employed, most often using the direct and indirect language of war.

We are told by the elite that we need to mobilize for a war on poverty, a war on stagnation, that we need to fight for the poor. The pre game show for the Super Bowl was a wonderfully troubling example of this use of media to enflame the public toward a collectivist solution. Images of nationalism and symbols of war were presented to move society further toward collectivism and we have heard repeatedly over this nascent year the very, very unfortunate phrase from JFK's inaugual address - ask not what your country can do for you, instead ask what you can do for your country.

This phrase is the perfect example of the power of the intelligensia to employ Orwellian rhetoric and use language as a weapon to both deceive and then move the masses toward collectivism.

So, back to the question - are we (and by we I mean all 309+ folks residing in the USA) better off today than we were 30, 50, or 100 years ago?

The answer is obvious.

In any case, the debate over whether or not and to what degree we are better off now than in the past rages on, with Bryan Caplan and David Henderson doing great work in demonstrating why things have never been better.

I think that the case is even stronger than perhaps they are making it. The discussion does seem to be heading in the right direction by making these comparisons in terms of the ultimate scarce resource: our time. Whatever one says about various aggregates, it seems to me that the key measure of how well off we are is how valuable our time is in terms of what it can purchase us. In David's last post, the point of comparison is weeks of median income needed to buy a car. This is not a bad way to go, but why not go to hours?


http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2011/02/are-we-better-off-today.html

No comments:

Post a Comment