4 Comments
Jan 7, 2022Liked by Cathy Reisenwitz

1) "If I had a button that would redistribute resources equally right now, but would mean innovation stopped or even slowed significantly, I wouldn’t push it."

2) "Yet I’m not a socialist. I’m not convinced that eliminating private property and the profit motive would lead to more innovation."

I think you can clarify your positions be seeing that the above are mostly straw positions. Basically nobody since Babeuf in the French Revolution has advocated (1) strict equality of resources. The vast majority of people on the left or who call themselves egalitarians are talking about increasing relative equality. And most people who call themselves socialists, at least in the US, also don't advocate (2). Let alone the many non-socialist progressives who are concerned with *reducing* inequality.

Over the years I've come to think the tradeoff is mostly propaganda. You are absolutely right that poverty and oppression are stifling talent and innovation that would lead to greater overall prosperity. To me, that means more spending (taxes) and wealth transfers to go with your otherwise great list of policies. Poor people actually have to be capitalized, the way the white middle class was. Public goods and public investments in this country that could actually foster growth have been stymied largely due to racialized narratives about makers and takers (see McGhee). Finally, I really recommend Confronting Inequality, by Berg, Ostry, and Loungani, who show that greater inequality correlates to shorter growth spells. It's a very short read, with lots of charts.

Shorter: neither conservatives nor libertarians are really the pro-growth factions.

Expand full comment
Jan 7, 2022Liked by Cathy Reisenwitz

Whoa. Lots of food for thought here. Suggestions for further reading?

Expand full comment
Jan 7, 2022Liked by Cathy Reisenwitz

A great Read...

Expand full comment