It has been often noticed, both by proponents of laissez-faire capitalism and by radicals, that the poor in the United States are not net benficiaries of
the total government programs and interventions in the economy. Much of
mbs: Noted by people who can't count, I imagine.
government regulation of industry was originated and is geared to protect the position of established firms against competition, and many programs greatly benefit the middle class. The critics (from the right or the left) of these government programs have offered no explanation, to my knowledge, why the middle class is the greatest net beneficiary.
mbs: reflects gross ignorance of the literature on regulation, from both right and left.
There is another puzzle of redistributive: why dont the least well-off 51 percent fo the voters vote for redistributive policies that would greatly improve their position at the expense of the best-off 49 percent? That this would work against their long-run interests is true, but this does not ring
mbs: actually there is a lot of evidence of the influence of the median voter on public sector outcomes. Again, the lack of reference to such work, aside from whether it is true or not, bespeaks ignorance.
true as the explanation of their refraining. Nor is an adequate explanation provided by referring to the lack of organization, political savvy, and so forth, in the bottom majority. So why hasnt such massive redistribution been voted? The fact will seem puzzling until one notices that the bottom 51 percent is not the only possible (continuous) voting majority; there is also, for example, the top 51 percent. Which of these two majorities will form
mbs: what an imbecile. this is discussed all the time in public choice lit. this is not even worth responding to.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010425/62b07e26/attachment.htm>