Bipartisan Agreement
David Leonhardt writes about Barack Obama’s view of the economy:
“Two things,” he said, as we were standing outside the first-class bathroom. “One, just because I think it really captures where I was going with the whole issue of balancing market sensibilities with moral sentiment. One of my favorite quotes is — you know that famous Robert F. Kennedy quote about the measure of our G.D.P.?” [...]
In it, Kennedy argues that a country’s health can’t be measured simply by its economic output. That output, he said, “counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them” but not “the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”
John McCain, somewhat on the defensive over thinking that people pulling down seven figure incomes are middle class, said something similar adding in a riff about poor billionaires:
“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”
And, indeed, the Beatles famously took a similar view:
33 Responses to “Bipartisan Agreement”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
There’s a recent Harper’s article (not enough coffee yet for Google) about the creation of the measure of GDP. The gist is that GDP was never intended to be a goal, just a metric (like a census). Eventually, especially under Reagan, the point of policy becomes simply to improve the metric.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Insofar as McCain’s statement is implying that happiness is not related to wealth, studies have shown that to be wrong. Now, I’m not saying that your happiness will rise at a consistent rate with every additional dollar earned. Rather, my understanding is that studies have shown that people who earn significantly less than the other people they consider to be in their community or population tend to be much more likely to be unhappy. Robert Frank wrote a very good book on this called Falling Behind. To me, this is why we need to increase the size of the middle class, not shrink it. You may have some unhappy billionaires and some happy poor people, but as far as where we should direct our national policy, countries with more economic inequality tend to be less happy, whereas countries with large middle classes tend to me more happy.
Giving our country a middle class of multi-millionaires would be great, but we’re not going to achieve that by cutting taxes for those who are currently the most wealthy.
Obama’s tax plan is much better, although I wish that he was concentrating a bit more on balancing the budget. Hopefully he’ll tackle that if he wins the election; it’s probably not a great topic on which to campaign (more taxes, cutting programs).
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
McCain’s comment is borderline “Noble Savage” territory.
Ah, the little people. They don’t know how good they have it, not having to worry about concerns like mine. Bless their hearts.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Re “makes it clear that in McCain’s case love bought him money and many other assets ”
———–
Gossip Girl says Cindy forgot the first rule of hiring a pool boy — Use them once and then throw them away. Like a Kleenex.
Especially a 72 year old Kleenex.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
Why pussyfoot around. The fact is that McCain dumped his first wife and traded her in for a younger and richer model.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
Re: countries with more economic inequality tend to be less happy, whereas countries with large middle classes tend to me more happy.
Not quite that simple. People base their happiness not just on the state of things right now, but on the trend that they see for the future. For example, Venezuela right now still has a fairly high level of inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, although that has improved significantly in the last ten years or so. It also has quite a high level of happiness relative to other countries in the region, however, because people see the trend in a positive direction and are hopeful that inequality will continue to decrease.
Conversely the ex-Soviet countries tend to still have fairly low levels of economic inequality but also tend to not be particularly happy- again, probably because life has become harder for a lot of people since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Culture also plays a role of course. I have no idea why Nigeria ranks so high on the happiness scale as it’s neither a particularly rich nor particularly equal country and I don’t see too many positive trends for its future. Apparently the Nigerians do however, or maybe it’s more that their high religiosity makes them hopeful and relatively happy.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
The quote that Obama is referring to is below, in all of its eloquence:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/RFKSpeech68Mar18UKansas.htm
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hector:
I don’t really disagree with anything that you said. Of course other factors come into play. I would never argue in favor of a society where everyone is uniformly oppressed and impoverished. Nevertheless, there appears to be a significant correlation between happiness and status as compared to those around you. The Venezuela example is nice, but this is still consistent with the notion that the population would be more happy if there was more equality.
Anyway, it wasn’t my intent to indicate that the equality factor is the sole factor, or even the most important factor. I simply think it is an important factor and that we should take it into account when formulating national policy.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
It should be noted that both Kennedy and Obama were speaking by way of discussing the nuances of a complex issue. McCain was pulling aphorisms out of the air to AVOID discussing the nuances of a complex issue.
One useful detail would be finding a word other than “happiness” to use while discussing “happiness.” It sounds too much like Sesame Street and allows the right-wing pundits and bloviators to dismiss an important issue way too easily.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Here is the Harper’s article on GDP. It’s really good.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/0082042
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yeah but have you ever tried to figure out a tax on happiness? It’s madness, so it’s better to err on the safe side and give that top 1% a chance to go and buy the happiness all the poor people have.
thesebastards.blogspot.com
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
James Montier, a British investment banker/psychologist, wrote a fascinating paper a couple of years ago called “It Doesn’t Pay: Materialism and The Pursuit Of Happiness”
Basically, once you make (the equivalent of) $50,000 a year and your basic needs are taken care of (food, shelter, medical care, etc). more money doesn’t make you happier, it just allows you to buy shinier toys.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article723047.ece
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Damn, Matt-Bobby Kennedy and the Beatles? You’re giving me a full-on Big Chill-esque vicarious ’60s nostalgia flashback trip a go go, man, baby! Where’s Dennis Hopper to sell me some insurance (or was it cocaine)? God, sometimes I think it’s a trick of fate to have to live through a period that in contrast seems so lo-quality.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Wouldn’t “Baby, You’re a Rich Man” have been a better choice?
August 24th, 2008 at 12:30 am
What I found most remarkable about this article was that David Leonhardt, whose byline lists him as an economics columnist for The Times and a staff writer for the magazine, had never heard the quote by Bobby Kennedy on GDP. Is there anyone besides me who thinks that an oversight such as this by the individual charged with knowing everything about economic matters by the newspaper of record says something pithy, and pitiful, about the times that we live in.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:17 am
“I didn’t, I said.”
Yeah, what Peterbart said struck me, too. I mean, shouldn’t economists at least have some familiarity with a few of the more famous critiques of the economic growth fixation? Or was Leonhardt just saying he didn’t know the quote?
September 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The Glaser Progress Foundation produced a video of RFK’s great speech on the GDP. You can find it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY
March 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.