“…Tokarev is too doctrinaire.”

Then you say

“Deregulation and privatization destroyed the post WWII consensus leading to the decline in real income as well as the present collapse of the US banking system.”

Tokarev is not the only “doctrinaire” one on this thread.

Report comment to moderator

Segmenting family income by quintile shows a minimal growth. Pew Reseach numbers range from 1.0% per annum for the fourth quintile (60-80%) to a growth rate of .01% in the lowest quintile.

If the longer term pattern has been slow growth, the last decade has been worse.

If we look at numbers for the present decade, figures are a little more grim, with an actual real loss of income in median income. This is US Census data. Source.

Report comment to moderator

I have heard of “real income” but was not aware of any declining trends (except maybe for the low-skilled Americans)

Report comment to moderator

The phrase “decline in real income” may be unfamiliar. In economic discussions (and political economic discussions such as this), it is a short hand for the inflation-adjusted income of the middle class. And here the economic statistics support HRW.

as to your question in 12

“freedom is constructed in a way to safeguard people”

isn’t that what all market economists mean by rule of law?

I think the fair answer is that it may. Though often rule of law (in economic terms) refers a fixed legal structure (sanctity of contracts and the like). But as those working in international development will tell you, economics depends on a cluster of social goods together with a fair legal system. For the Christian, this means that law also includes safe guards for the economically weak. What those safeguards should be can be a matter of discussion. The reality is — and here I suspect, Dr. Tokarev agrees — economies need both a solid culture and this law to thrive.

Report comment to moderator

isn’t that what all market economists mean by rule of law?

Report comment to moderator

but if you follow that argument we should require that companies make perfectly safe products – is that possible?

Report comment to moderator

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE AUTHOR MEANS “life, liberty, and private property FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS”?

in which case slavery should be punished for taking someone’s liberty and for stealing the fruit of someone’s labor

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

BUT HOW DO YOU SERVE “INTENTIONALLY” THE NEEDS OF SOMEONE YOU DON’T KNOW – WHICH IS THE CASE SO OFTEN IN A GLOBAL MARKET?

Report comment to moderator

HRW makes a good point about this equation of Divine mechanism and “invisible hand.” The idea of the invisible hand, at least in its original formulation by Adam Smith, was something akin to the outcome from competing forces. That is, if everyone is competing, we are more likely to get the optimal outcome, guided as it were, “by an invisible hand.” In this concept, there is a lot of wisdom, all the way back to the notion of “iron sharpening iron.” Obviously for this to work the participants have to enjoy a freedom to act. That, and there have to be plenty of them, the better to prevent collusion.

Yet here, Tokarev does an interesting reversal:

Can we rely on the invisible hand and the Constitution to preserve and enhance our freedom and prosperity?

This invisible hand is not an outcome of competition, but rather a generator of freedom. But the IH is actually a product of freedom. This is why the question of ethics comes first. Only when that freedom is constructed in a way to safeguard people can this market mechanism work. we set the boundaries for this freedom first (e.g. Bill of Rights). In pushing for basic dignities we do not violate “the invisible hand” so much as set the groundwork.

As to basic violations, Tom Frank in today’s WSJ has an interesting column about indentured service — slavery, really — in good ol’ mid-America, right there in Branson, no less.

Report comment to moderator