paternalism anyone?

Jacob Weisberg: "If, as evidence suggests, people aren't always rational economic actors, then it's reasonable toward better choices"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215737 (I can't make the link work).

"The underlying left-right divide is about whether or not government should promote virtue, but rather about what kind of virtue it should promote...Both sides take pleasure in mildly persecuting those who fail to meet their civic ideals" Oh, the nature of political news analysts...

But, the next point about American politics is particularly interesting. "Because Democrats hold power at the moment, they face greater power of paternalistic overreaching. It would be wise for observe Sunstein's line. To exhort, nag, tax, and regulate people for the sake of diminishing purely self-destructive behavior is defensible. But to take choices away on the grounds that people should know better is infantilizing-and likely to hurt those who bear the burden of favoring more instrusive government. Liberals should show restraint, lest the freedom to be stupid go up in smoke." For all the sass in his statment, Wesiberg has a point. Should public policy be designed to restrain the public? Everyone has to make choices for themselves. Please don't waste public money Mr. Obama.

Can we take some personal responsibility please?

Economics focus: Waist banned | The Economist

Shared via AddThis...

As I think about the growing health issues in America (and around the world), I wish we as a society would understand the necessity of a little balance in our lives. Why can't we as individuals take some personal responsibility for our health?

While I understand that not everyone may be as health conscious as I am, nor do they like activity as much as I do, I have a problem with people who make excuses for their behaviors. Hello America, it's time to not drink sugar-filled drinks with every meal. It's time to plan out effective eating habits. If you let your weight become an issue, learn to manage it...because it is the most important thing you have. A healthy eater is a healthy person.

So, should we really depend on the government to tax "junk food"? Heck no. As the brilliant authors at the Economist ask, "Would a fat tax affect behaviour"? No. People must change their personal behavior to lose weight, which means tossing in some fruits, vegetables, and maybe a 30-60 minute workout a few times a week.

It's just that simple.

Development...

Something interesting to think about is whether a global economy can support state socio-economic development...as in moving from an impoverished agrarian/subsistence culture to one of trade.

Stiglitz does a decent job at addressing if globalization and the market economy truly allow for states to "develop". But firstly, what is development? What pre-conditions are necessary for such growth to occur? Development of impoverished countries is just that-a shift in capability made possible through improvements in health, education, sanitation, government, and other components of basic infrastructure necessary for the public to survive adequatley, or maybe a little prosperity thrown in there.

But my problem with Wolf's chapters is their utter failure to mention micro-finance. While I'm an idealist, I hope that others understand the priviledges we have here. For seniors who're graduating, we simply attempt to find a job. We have the world at our fingertips. Now, imagine living in a world where water shortages exist, diease may have taken members of your family, civil unrest exists, the freedom of women may be just a passing thought, and you work to live.

Now, does Wolf mention this? No. He self-righteously assumes that the market economy takes care of everyone. Yes, there are haves and have-nots. But do we exist in a society where that gap should be increasingly by the year? One would hope not. As priviledged citizens, our life is not necessarily our own. Yes, capitalism, trade, and the economic fringe benefits are great. But there are others who are in fact worse off, starving, dying, exhausted-because they may not have been given a chance to reach a higher potential.

"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."
Sir Josiah Charles Stamp, an English Economist

This quote launches me into my question for next time: "How does development of the community infrastructure create itself?"

The World-It's Complicated

The plethora of competing interests involved in the international political economy give rise to global tension. To separate the tangled web of relationships between states, diverse societies, political institutions, micro and macro economies, inter-governmental organizations, and multi-national corporations is simply one task. The international attitudes toward any number of issues lack clear definition or a popular majority understanding. Perhaps the greatest challenge is the active engagement of such diverse actors to effectively implement policy.

First, one must examine the political structure and institutional power within a state. Do democratic processes exist? Is there equality for all citizens? Is the power given to one executive leader or is there a constitutional system of checks and balances? Do bureaucratic systems exist? How does the public participate in the policy making process? These simple questions must be answered to effectively evaluate a state’s ability to participate in the macro-political economy.

Beyond the inter-state competing interests are intra-state issues which spur regional tensions, spark conflict, and increase inequality. Furthermore, severe socio-economic disparities exist more than ever. However, regional political and non-governmental institutions are completely incapable of creating feasible long-term solutions? Why? The current lack of institutional understanding, direction, and oversight hinders any progress towards reaching development goals. Unfortunately, this can be said for much of foreign policy whether it be-military, economic, social, or environmental. The competing interests among intra-state political systems, corporations, and the public sector effectively thwart conflict resolution and policy creation.

A clear vision of macro-economic functions does not exist. Nor does a unified distribution of world power. The status quo is such that the United States is a global hegemony seeking to maintain the current balance of power. When a powerful state relies upon officials who have little experience in international politics or finance, an envisioned policy of mitigation and solution simple fails.

While somewhat pithy and pessimistic, the key fact is that collaboration and cooperation at all levels remains to be the greatest challenge to the international political economy. Any international governing institution is only as powerful as country from which elected officials reside. Where does leadership power stem from? How is national interest represented in G-20, G-8, and other conferences? Do the leaders truly balance political and socio-economic interest in conducting policy, creating strategy, and adopting trade models? Most importantly-how is tension diffused among competing groups? Is world peace protected in lieu of true equality?

Essentially, we must ask whether the alphabet soup of organization, the NGOs, IPOs, UN, UK, EU, US, MNCs, WTO, World Bank, NAFTA, SEC, and others can truly collaborate at an international level to enact social policy. This is the greatest challenge tasked to those actors engaged in actions associate with the international political economy.