On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:35 , Carrol Cox <cbcox@ilstu.edu> sent:

>What evidence do you have that the arguments of economists were ever a
>major influence on policy. It seems rather that from the 17th c. on the
>arguments of the economists always _followed_ rather than precipitated
>economic and political practice.

Since I am not well versed in economic history, I cannot debate your point.  But even if it is true that economic theory has typically 
followed “economic and political practice” historically, such an observation would not establish a one-way cause-and-effect relationship 
between the two.  How can you rule out the possibility that theory might also be able to influence practice?  Why wouldn’t it be fair to say that 
your argument faces the primary burden of proof?


>If political explosions make taxing the rich politically necessary, then
>(and I think only then) will the arguments you cite become influential,
>after the fact.
>
>Carrol

What makes legislative actions like “taxing the rich” politically necessary is a shared perception among the politically powerful that their 
interests would be better served by doing so.  The Taxwisdom.org web page explains to the reader why “wealthy citizens who are wise should 
be lobbying for an increase in government spending and an increase in their tax rates.”  If a sufficient number of wealthy people find that the 
Taxwisdom arguments make sense, then they could be expected to use their political power to effect change.

Linette