Thoughts from George Will on the parallels between Wilson and the current president.
How gripped was Wilson by what Beinart calls “the hubris of reason”? Beinart writes: “He even recommended to his wife that they draft a constitution for their marriage. Let’s write down the basic rules, he suggested; ‘then we can make bylaws at our leisure as they become necessary.’ It was an early warning sign, a hint that perhaps the earnest young rationalizer did not understand that there were spheres where abstract principles didn’t get you very far, where reason could never be king.”
Professor Obama, who will seek re-election on the 100th anniversary of Wilson’s 1912 election, understands, which makes him melancholy. Speaking to Katie Couric on Feb. 7, Obama said: “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”
Note his aesthetic criterion of elegance, by which he probably means sublime complexity. During the yearlong health care debate, Republicans such as Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have consistently cautioned against the conceit that government is good at “comprehensive” solutions to the complex problems of a continental nation. Obama has consistently argued, in effect, that the health care system is like a Calder mobile — touch it here and things will jiggle here, there and everywhere. Because everything is connected to everything else, merely piecemeal change is impossible.
So note also Obama’s yearning for something “academically approved” rather than something resulting from “a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people,” aka politics. Here, too, Obama is in the spirit of the U.S. President who first was president of the American Political Science Association.
It’s worth noting that Wilson was the first fascist dictator we ever had as president, and a model for much of Mussolini’s program. We’ll never know what he might have done had he failed in his bid for a third term — the nation was saved by his stroke.
Of course Ken, if the elderly population had increased a million times and GDP only increased 400% there would be a more serious problem…
Daveon, let me speak slowly…
If you increase wealth per person you decrease their poverty.
Before you say it, let’s go back to this one…
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 1959: 35%
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 2003: 10%
Poverty is a designated point. 1% increase in wealth could account for the quoted change.
if the elderly population had increased a million times and GDP only increased 400% there would be a more serious problem
That’s fer sure. I do wish I were better at expressing myself. It why I keep coming back to this blog (for years.) I am in awe of how well Rand and many of his commentors here express themselves.
But even with my poor skills, my point should be fairly clear. 1% may be meaningless, but the decline in poverty in the half decade you specified could certainly be accounted for by a 30% increase in wealth, considering all it has to do is move a percentage over a point designated as poverty.
If you increase wealth per person you decrease their poverty.
So, if that’s the case, would you explain why that stopped happening in 1966 and the rate of increase flattened out even though GDP continued to increase at roughly the same rate.
If you’re correct and there were no other factors at play (i.e. government actions), then the improvement in poverty levels should have continued to improve post 1966. Except that didn’t happen.
Now… getting to your point about GDP growth equaling wealth – if you look at the actual household income numbers you see that actual incomes track behind GDP growth. And at periods of economic contraction, even when the GDP continued to rise, saw increases in poverty levels – which shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody really.
If you increase wealth per person you decrease their poverty.
So, if that’s the case…
Is it reading comprehension or do you actually disagree with that statement. Before we could address any other issue that needs an answer.
Per person. Each of those people. Charts can mislead, but this is pretty simple stuff.
poverty levels should have continued to improve post 1966
They did.
When much of the process was done behind closed doors
What was done behind closed doors? Health care reform went through 3 Senate committees, and 2 House committees, with GOP representation on all those committes, and their hearings and votes are all in the public record.
1% increase in wealth could account for the quoted change.
And yet the elderly, the recipients of Social Security and Medicare spending, saw a steeper drop in poverty than the non-elderly. Which suggests that it was those programs, not general economic growth, that made the difference.
Ken, it *is* simple stuff which is why I don’t really understand why you’ve such a problem with it.
Is it reading comprehension or do you actually disagree with that statement.
The statement is correct, but misleading, in that the data presented isn’t discussing nor showing an increase in per capita wealth, it’s showing an increase in per capita GDP. The two are not the same and aren’t even directly related, especially in the case of the retired, and those approaching retirement – especially based on average earning and wealth generation patterns which generally show that you “top out” in the wealth generation and earning stakes sometime in your 50s.
As the bulk of the improvement in the poverty of the over 65s occured between 1960-1065, you’d need a huge increase, a lot more than the 30% shown in that period to influence personal wealth in the over 55s to account for that kind of drop. Nor would it explain why that drop started so precipitiously in 1959/60, nor why levels of poverty effectively halved by 1965 but then stayed static at 10-12%ish for the next decade, before increasing again to about 15% by the early 80s, before dropping in the late 80s and rising again in the early 90s…
Perhaps something economic happened in the late 70s/early80s and early 90s that might have impacted personal wealth even if GDP increased?
Oh… looky here – it looks like those increases in poverty map to recessions… with the levels of poverty returning to the mid-60s level by 2000…
Now… I wonder what we’ll see for people hitting 65 in 2010?
Because I bet we’re going to see a spike in poverty levels as people who had been preparing to retire in 2010 saw their personal wealth halve over the last 5 years.
And if you’re at retirement age now with half the personal wealth you had 5 years ago – what is your method for their wealth to increase again? Because no rise in GDP level is going to affect the annunity they’ll probably be buying.
And yet the elderly, the recipients of Social Security and Medicare spending, saw a steeper drop in poverty than the non-elderly. Which suggests that it was those programs, not general economic growth, that made the difference.
We haven’t even addressed why this wealth transfer is supposed to be a good thing. You are basically claiming that these programs improved the welfare of the elderly at the expense of other groups of people.
We haven’t even addressed why this wealth transfer is supposed to be a good thing.
No, we haven’t.
You are basically claiming that these programs improved the welfare of the elderly at the expense of other groups of people.
Yes, I am.
Besides the straw man and the argument from pity, Jim also obviously likes the “post ergo propter hoc” fallacy.
On Bizarro Planet, Jim is obviously not only a distinguished economist, but a noted logician. to boot.