Skip to main content

1952 recalled some more

She (my friend) then added her own comment:

There were a lot of things wrong with the 50's, but one parent working with another one staying home (which they owned) was doable when the onus of taxes wasn't on citizens.

The onus of taxes wasn't on the citizens because it was on the "corporations" you see. She seemed to be agreeing with the Sanders quote she attached that we ought to get back to that.

But what does it mean to tax corporations exactly? Is it a free lunch for the "citizens"?

Of course not. Depending on a variety of circumstances, a corporate tax gets money into the Treasury from one of three sources: the shareholders of the corporation in question; the consumers of the products and services it creates; the employees.

If the labor market for the sort of labor a particular corporation needs will allow, the corporation (a legal form for the interactions of natural people) will pass the cost of the tax that way. If the labor market doesn't allow this -- perhaps there aren't enough people with the right skills to go around -- the tax may well be passed to the consumers in higher prices. If the competitive situation doesn't allow this either, the tax presumably bites the holders of equity. I think it is a reasonable guess that third possibility is the desired one.

Yet it isn't clear to me why we should treat shareholders as illegal aliens, contrasting them with "citizens" in the way described above. The shareholders include pension funds, certainly, and those funds are supposed to protect the interests of large swatches of working people, those no longer actively in the work force as well as those who will remain there for years yet. The shareholders also include other institutions with broad demographic bases.

I'm not sure my friend thought any of this through.

Also, there is the matter of the breadth of home ownership. The comment, with its parenthesis, suggests that a couple raising children, and owning their own home, is an ideal thing, especially if the income of only one of them is sufficient to run the household and pay the mortgage. I had thought more recent events, events in this millennium, might have cured us of the romanticization of home ownership but, hey, some ideas die hard.

Allow me simply to set out the hypothesis that the way in which the U.S. government intervened in the economy to promote the housing industry in the 'Levittown' era, the intervention that created the housing glut to which my friend looks with such fondness, was rare and unsustainable. It was possible because the U.S. stood alone in the world. The U.S. was virtually the only developed capitalist economy in the world by 1945 that had been neither a battlefield nor (excepting of course Pearl Harbor) the target of ruinous bombardment.

That situation was bound not to last as the rest of the world, the bombarded and fought-upon parts, got back on their feet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …