Is Thomas Edsall the High Priest of Loser Liberalism?

"Looked at another way, the two sides are fighting over what the role of government in redistributing resources from the affluent to the needy should and shouldn’t be."

This is absolutely not true. The government decides how to structure the market. Its decisions in this area swamp the impact of the redistributive policies that liberals and conservatives often fight over.

For example, patent protection for prescription drugs redistributes more than five times as much money to the holders of patent monopolies as the Bush tax cuts did for the richest two percent of the population. Similarly, the protectionist barriers that limit the competition that doctors, lawyers and other highly paid professionals face from foreign competition are comparable to giving them a welfare check that averages in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year.

There are many other ways in which government policy on structuring the market have enormous impact on the distribution of income. It is understandable that conservatives would like to divert the public's attention from the ways in which the government structures the market to redistribute income upward. It is hard to understand why liberals would ever accept this "loser liberalism" framework which reduces the policy debate to the extent to which government should redistribute money from the winners in the market to the losers.

This is absolutely not true. The government decides how to structure the market.
written by Luke Lea, January 15, 2012 9:29 PM

Tariffs, Immigration, Wage and Hour laws . . .

...
written by Russ Abbott, January 15, 2012 9:54 PM

Arent you being a bit harsh with Edsall? Most of the column was ok, wasn't it? The one sentence about redistribution was his way of summarizing differences in priorities: is liberty all important or does compassion count too? (I liked Jeffrey Sacks piece in HP today.) Perhaps you don't like the way he put it, but I don't think he can fairly be called the "high priest of loser liberalism."

-1

...
written by Andrew Clearfield, January 16, 2012 12:39 AM

Then what are the two sides fighting over?
They're not fighting over whether to break up the protection barriers for lawyers and doctors, and they're not fighting over patent laws, to use your examples. But they are fighting over whether to redistribute rich people's money to pay for health care for poorer people; they are fighting over whether to stop or accelerate the transfer of money to the top percent via tax cuts and consumer protections and wall street regulations (and the list goes on). In other words, it is true that the vast bulk of redistributionist policies (like the reverse redistribution policies that you mention) are not the center of the fight, but this surely doesn't mean that redistribution is not a (or even the) central difference between the left and the right. In sum, I think you were a little harsh here, particularly since you don't correct Edsall's error and offer a better one sentence ecapsulation of the debate between left and right.

...
written by liberal, January 16, 2012 5:20 AM

There are many other ways in which government policy on structuring the market have enormous impact on the distribution of income.

Yeah, including something much bigger than anything Dean or the other commenters have mentioned---land titles, which govern roughly 10--20% of GDP (land rent).

...
written by liberal, January 16, 2012 5:27 AM

Russ Abbott wrote,

The one sentence about redistribution was his way of summarizing differences in priorities: is liberty all important or does compassion count too?

Huh? You've got it completely wrong. The government policies that are responsible for distributing wealth from those with less to those with more are also infringements of liberty.

For example, take patents. They are a government-granted monopoly that allow the holder to sue, infringing on the liberty of others who likely didn't need the patent-holder's work to come up with the idea under patent.

The biggest example is land, which is the product of no one's labor. By granting land titles, the government infringes on the liberty of those not holding title to use particular parcels of land. Of course, collectivism is a terribly inefficient way of using land. But in return for infringing the liberty of those who are no longer granted free access to a parcel of land, the government ought to charge the title holder a fee commensurate with his unearned gains, or at least something approaching it. That would be a land value tax that would recoup to the government all (or the better part of) the annual land rent. The government would then distribute these (fair) proceeds, either directly (through an annual citizen's dividend) or indirectly (through government investments) to the populace.

Winners are Ex Ante, Losers are Ex Post: Get Over It and Compete to Win, Low-rated comment [Show]

...
written by Mark Jamison, January 16, 2012 6:28 AM

The problem with the Edsall piece is that he conflates what currently is called conservatism with actual conservatism. The Right is reactionary, radical, and steeped in libertarianism. The Right is also the epitome of cognitive dissonance since while it calls for smaller government both deficits and the size of government have risen on its watch.
The primary policy of the right seems to be to use the inflammatory language of libertarianism as a smoke screen for rigging government in its favor.

Upward redistribution of income
written by Robert Salzberg, January 16, 2012 7:06 AM

Abusive labor practices rob workers of a reasonable wage. Farm workers are exempt most from labor laws. The federal minimum wage today is 43% less in real dollars than it was in 1968. Health care is unaffordable to millions because the government refuses to directly negotiate with corporations.

All these policies and others have the net effect of redistributing income upward.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. "
Abraham Lincoln

Another toothpick on the back of loser liberal's camel
written by diesel, January 16, 2012 7:19 AM

This is somewhat off topic but timely....

According to Wikipedia, "As a result of the 2006 contracts with television networks and the increased concentration of media ownership in recent years, the NFL now holds broadcast contracts with the companies that control all of the nationwide American broadcast networks and the vast majority of the major cable networks. This has resulted in a monopoly on the ability to broadcast professional football games on television..." and the revenue derived from airing pro football is the largest single entity in entertainment.

So when the United States Marines Corp airs a commercial during the playoff games, the advertising fee goes from the networks into the pockets of the pants worn by the league owners who are among the richest Americans in what would seem to be an indirect subsidy by the U.S. taxpayer and is another (admittedly small) example of hidden redistributive policies that cause money to defy gravity and flow from the bottom up.

Big +1's to liberal
written by LSTB, January 16, 2012 7:22 AM

Way to draw up some Henry George on these people. Also add renting out the EM spectrum and geostationary orbits.

Net effect of American Capitalism
written by Robert Salzberg, January 16, 2012 7:55 AM

Lane Kenworthy has a great article and chart showing how productivity gains and wage gains stopped being in sinc with the onset of Reagonomics.
If Americans were paid their fair share for what they produce, they would be earning almost 50% more than they are today. Because Kenworthy's chart ends in 2007, the data would be even more stark today.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-middle-america/

izzatzo
written by JSeydl, January 16, 2012 8:23 AM

I always get a kick out of izzatzo's comments. But the one above by far takes the cake. Bravo. That is funny as hell.

Is Thomas Edsall the High Priest of Loser Liberalism?

About Beat the Press