Jim,
I think you should go whole hog and have three
"left-wings" on there. Joan Robinson used to write
about the "neo-neo-classical production function." I
once wrote a paper on the "neo-neo-neo-classical
production function," but never could get the damned
thing published. I still have it around somewhere..... :-).
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 3:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19729] Re: RE: Re: JD on EITC (Was Krugman Watch)
>At 01:38 PM 05/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>>JD: . . .
>>(BTW, I can't believe that I awakened MBS's ire so much when I asserted
>>that "the earned income credit (unlike classic income-support measures)
>>make workers more dependent on their employers' good wishes, i.e., hardly
>>helps their bargaining power." This is hardly a radical statement.)
>> >>>>>
>>
>>It wasn't just that, it was the comparison between the IRS and the
>>traditional welfare system. What bugs me in the overall sense is the
>>negative and grossly inaccurate depiction of one of the most progressive
>>aspects of the Gov. It encourages ultimatism and
>>left-wing-left-wing communism.
>
>If I am a "left-wing-left-wing communist," that's hardly a sign that I'm
>wrong. After all, some of the "left-wing communist" criticisms of the
>Russian Revolution look better in light of history.
>
>I think Carroll is accurate when he notes: >But I think you are dangerously
>mixing (rather than uniting: there is a difference) theory and practice.
>Jim is not quite saying that if the state doesn't replace EITC with direct
>welfare payments without strings he will pick up his marbles and go home.
>(Is that what you mean by ultimatism? It sounds real sinister.) The "level"
>at which he is operating, if I understand him correctly, is that of a basic
>understanding of the treatment/mistreatment of the poor at the present
>time. How that is to translate into political practice would be a matter of
>further debate (and probably would not involve "ultimatism." Love that
>word). The core point for *understanding* -- again, with the proviso
>that understanding never translates directly into practice without more
>ado -- is where capital draws the line in its treatment of the
>reserve army of labor. And the resemblances as well as differences -- the
>resemblances *more* than the differences -- between public aid and EITC are
>all important here it seems. And you seem dogmatically determined not to
>allow for those resemblances.<
>
>Look, my point was simple and involves "positive" rather than "normative"
>economics [understanding, not practical implications about what should be
>done]: Starting with a more dramatic case, the next time there's a
>recession, the switch to the EITC from old-fashioned "welfare" will mean
>that not only will workers lose their jobs, but they'll lose their
>tax-break. (This undermines the famous "automatic stabilizers," BTW.)
>Repeating what I'd said concerning the day-to-day level in different
>terminology, in a non-recession situation, the loss of the tax-break
>implies a higher "cost of job loss" (to use Schor & Bowles' term) than did
>traditional government income support. The EITC _complements_ wages as a
>source of income, whereas tradition income support was a _substitute_ for
>wages. Luckily, we still have such old-fashioned income-support
>institutions as unemployment insurance. Luckily, other institutions such as
>the minimum wage exist, so that the EITC doesn't act as a pure wage
>subsidy, which according to most "tax incidence" economics I've seen, would
>allow employers to pay a dollar less for each dollar paid in the EITC
>(which really screws those who do fear or misunderstand the tax system and
>so don't apply for the EITC).
>
>BTW, I think the "pure wage subsidy" component of the EITC is one reason
>why it continues to grow despite the increasingly reactionary nature of the
>political scene.
>
>BTW2, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the EITC is "one of the most
>progressive aspects of the Gov." After all, how did the "Gov" pay for it?
>There were all sorts of cuts of other programs, many of which benefited the
>poor, no? Shouldn't the "progressiveness" of any program be judged as part
>of the general "progressiveness" of the"Gov"?
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>
