Santa Cruz Good Times

Tuesday
Feb 09th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

The Great Battle of Self-interest

tom_honig_sCNBC has been showing a promo video lately featuring the late Milton Friedman, the free-market, laissez-faire economist. Friedman was hardly your Santa Cruz kind of guy as he argued bookishly against government regulation and what he saw as unreasonable intrusion into free enterprise.

In the video, circa 1980, Friedman asks a question of host Phil Donahue that resonates today, while governments at all levels face grinding debt and the likelihood of cutbacks.

His question: “Is it true that political self-interest is somehow nobler than economic self-interest?”

Political self-interest is center stage these days. Maybe it always has been, but as governments search high and low for places to cut, those interests now are working against each other.

Here’s how it looks. Public employees fight to keep their benefits and salaries. The sick fight to keep their Medicaid payments. Teachers and administrators battle over too few dollars. Local cities and counties are in a battle with the governor over redevelopment dollars. Firefighters and the police worry over their salaries.

These groups all are fighting from a viewpoint of political self-interest. And so, in fact, are a number of corporations, who spend tons of dollars on lobbying efforts, generally looking for tax breaks or a way to fight foreign competition.

Meanwhile, another video is making the rounds. Filmmaker Michael Moore whips up emotions among striking workers in Wisconsin by arguing that there’s plenty of money, but that a wealthy elite is hogging it all for themselves.

So is there a solution here somewhere?

Friedman’s point of view is attractive, largely from the standard economic argument that people tend to act in their own self-interest. That’s true of striking workers in Wisconsin, of developers who profit from redevelopment funds here in Santa Cruz, and even of the captains of industry whose annual salaries are in the millions.

Yet Moore’s comments are hard to dismiss: one look around any city in America will reveal a shocking disparity of wealth. I remember walking down a street in New York, where homeless people are begging just outside of the world’s most glamorous boutiques. I wondered: why don’t the poor just rise up and steal this wealth for themselves? That must have been the same insight that Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin had back in the day.

So should wealth be redistributed? It sure makes sense that a homeless person trudging up Pacific Avenue could make use of just a fraction of Bill Gates’ billions of dollars.

But now it gets complicated. How would the homeless person use the money? Or should the money go instead to a poor pupil who’s trying to get ahead. In fact, maybe that pupil will achieve so much that she in turn will be in a position to donate millions back to the next generation. Who decides?

Notice, of course, that Bill Gates doesn’t turn the money over to the government to decide how it’s used. He and his wife, Melinda, operate a foundation, where they allocate funds based on the perceived value of who is in need.

Would Michael Moore have Gates end the foundation and grant the dollars back into state and national coffers? Then what happens? Would the now-swollen government dollars be used to help our poor pupil? Would it go to homeless services? Or would it go to pay for public employee pensions? Right there, you’re starting a fight between, say, a teacher and a prison guard and a welfare recipient.

This damn self-interest gets in the way of easy answers. Here’s where Moore’s argument (and mine, as I see the inequities on a New York street) goes astray: there’s no easy way to soak the rich. California, after all, has tried it.

For many years, the only tax that could pass the Legislature in California is an increased income tax on the wealthy. The result is that when the top earners do well and the economy is rolling along – the tax coffers fill up. But when times are tough, incomes fall and the budget is bathed in red ink. (There’s another aspect to it—the wealthy also leave the state and go elsewhere.)

Economists always remind us about

unintended consequences. In fact, those from the Milton Friedman school say it with

irritating regularity.

So there you have it. People from all walks of life fighting out of self-interest. Free-enterprise folks are interested in money. Those who want more government control want more for their constituents, and  sometimes for their largest donors.

But the question remains: is political self-interest nobler than economic self-interest?

I say it’s not. But I suspect that most people in Santa Cruz would argue otherwise.

 


Be a part of the discussion. Comment on this article below or send to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .  Contact Tom Honig at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

On the Run

Is there hope for California’s salmon?

 

Chinese New Year of the Red Fire Monkey

Monday, Feb. 8, is Aquarius new moon (19 degrees) and Chinese New Year of the Red Fire Monkey (an imaginative, intelligent and vigilant creature). Monkey is bright, quick, lively, quite naughty, clever, inquiring, sensible, and reliable. Monkey loves to help others. Often they are teachers, writers and linguists. They are very talented, like renaissance people. Leonardo Da Vinci was born in the year of Monkey. Monkey contains metal (relation to gold) and water (wisdom, danger). 2016 will be a year of finances. For a return on one’s money, invest in monkey’s ideas. Metal is related to wind (change). Therefore events in 2016 will change very quickly. We must ponder with care before making financial, business and relationship changes. Fortune’s path may not be smooth in 2016. Finances and business as usual will be challenged. Although we develop practical goals, the outcomes are different than hoped for. We must be cautious with investments and business partnership. It is most important to cultivate a balanced and harmonious daily life, seeking ways to release tension, pressure and stress to improve health and calmness. Monkey is lively, flexible, quick-witted, and versatile. Their gentle, honest, enchanting yet resourceful nature results often in everlasting love. Monkeys are freedom loving. Without freedom, Monkey becomes dull, sad and very unhappy. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770 - 476 BC), the Chinese official title of Marquis (noble person) was pronounced ‘Hou,’ the same as the pronunciation of ‘monkey’ in Chinese. Monkey was thereby bestowed with auspicious (favorable, fortunate) meaning. Monkey years are: 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016.  

 

The New Tech Nexus

Community leaders in science and technology unite to form web-based networking program

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of February 5

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Wine and Chocolate

West Cliff Wines gets its game on, plus a brand new chocolate cafe on Center Street

 

How would you stop people from littering?

Teach them from the time that they’re small that it’s not an appropriate behavior. Juliet Jones, Santa Cruz, Claims Adjuster

 

Dancing Creek Winery

New Zinfandel Port is a ruby beauty

 

Venus Spirits

Changing law could mean new opportunity for local spirits