Economic Views

I would not agree with either David Gordon or Paul Krugman, but David wrote a masterful Review of Paul’s ‘ The Conscience of a Liberal’. I say this because David adopts a effective description of Paul’s work, clearly outlining the disagreement between themselves in a lucid manner. David establishes that Paul may be too harsh in his anger at the growth of the Super-Rich, and sets the foundation for the necessity of Incentives. The trouble enters with the fact that von Mises was also forever too harsh in the promotion of those Incentives; marginal utility must be brought to the table, what is exactly the value of the added Marginal Dollar of Profit? The economic theory, of which Gordon says the Krugman book is so remiss, would suggest that progressive taxation is valid when added Riches to the Individual will not have the utility as in its expenditure by Government programs. Still, no one brings the proper economic model to the Problem.

Both Author and his Critic mix economic and social values quite liberally. What is the Marginal Dollar value of Charity v. Government Expenditure? It is obvious that Hayek’s Lack of Information will exist to great degree in the provision of Charity, the later never capable of handling the magnitude presented by the health care industry. It must be Government Expenditure, or lack of Provision for Those incapable of paying the high Charges of the health care industry. Krugman’s solution remain too generous of other peoples’ money, but Gordon’s solution would leave the health care industry stunted with Millions not receiving proper medical care. Economics suggests that the health care industry must have effective funding, but Krugman’s proposal that Everyone gets the Best is equally unsustainable.

Gordon punishes Krugman’s support of Unions, and praises the Tax Cuts of the current era. The criteria seems to be invalid. The Poor and Middle Class suffer from high Taxes, this affliction coming from a withdrawal of forwarded Tax revenues from Business and the Wealthy. Both of the good Gentlemen may disagree with that assessment, but it is true, and has more to do with the creation of the Super-Rich than does the loss of Unions. The common economic contention that We could not have had the economic growth We have achieved without those Tax remissions, I would place in the Wrong column. Economic growth has always remained far more dependent on liberal amounts of Labor and Talent, than it has ever been dependent on the mechanisms of funding the resultant economic growth. If they are there, they will build it! lgl