tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post6560032893158944922..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Casey Mulligan and Political EconomyEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-43774342610101681332013-01-25T18:18:10.932-05:002013-01-25T18:18:10.932-05:00Yeah, that is indeed a stretch, and really takes t...Yeah, that is indeed a stretch, and really takes to an extreme the insulting idea that lies behind arguments like Mulligan's (that poor people are poor because they're lazy, bad people, and rich people are rich because they're really good). <br /><br />I don't think that the Poor Laws were necessarily motivated by the benevolence of wealthy Tories. By mercantilists' reasoning, payments to the unemployed would shore up food prices and thus rents, and so keep the income stream of landlords secure (this was the the constituency of the Tory party that supported these measures, after all). This would be consistent with their rationales for supporting inflation and monopolies. Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-80776299300956584212013-01-25T15:49:02.033-05:002013-01-25T15:49:02.033-05:00Right, but the determinants of late 18th/early 19t...Right, but the determinants of late 18th/early 19th century social policy are very different from the determinants of 20th and 21st century social policy! Quite a bit happened in between!<br /><br />I haven't said rich people have never advocated social policy.<br /><br />I haven't said rich people today don't advocate social policy.<br /><br />I'm saying that the reason why we have the safety net we have today is not because of the demands of the right tail of the income distribution.<br /><br />Even Pete Boettke told me he didn't buy that argument (as an explanation of the safety net today).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-25937650398979349202013-01-25T15:43:38.603-05:002013-01-25T15:43:38.603-05:00Laugh all you want, but Smith, Ricardo, James Mill...Laugh all you want, but Smith, Ricardo, James Mill, and most of the early "modern" economists made similar assertions about the dastardly "Poor Laws" and benevolent aid to the poor. This crowd even went so far as to actively discourage wealthy people from donating to charity: <br /><br />http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/01/talk-of-shirkers-echoes-victorian-past.htmlWillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13884720387562714922013-01-25T13:10:07.623-05:002013-01-25T13:10:07.623-05:00If the elites support welfare for the poor it is o...If the elites support welfare for the poor it is only because they fear the alternative is being dragged from their beds by a mob and murdered in the middle of the night.<br /><br />The right has become increasing hostile to helping the poor in lock step as the perceived threat of communism has receded.Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.com