Skip to main content

Ants and Grasshoppers

I've been watching a series on Moyers and Company that explores the issues of the day in a thoughtful way. A recent episode titled "The Roots of our Contentious Political Culture" featured author Jonathan Haidt who presented his thoughts on the foundations of the differences between the world views of the left and right.

One example that Haidt presented really resonated with me. He told the story of the ants and the grasshopper, where the ants work all summer while the grasshopper plays. When winter comes the grasshopper comes to the ants' door to ask for food. What should they do? Conservative philosophy tends to feel that the grasshopper should suffer for his actions,that this is his karma, while liberals are more inclined to feel compassion and offer to help.

I think that there's one more aspect of this debate that shapes my view, and that's my belief that just working hard doesn't guarantee success in the world. There's a lot of randomness in life. Good people who work hard can end up in trouble and need help.

Haidt's point is that the differences in support of social programs is due to the conservative value of fairness and karma versus the liberal value of compassion combined with the belief that failure is not always self inflicted. It's easy to provide examples that support either position and both sides tend to discount counter examples, an example of confirmation bias.

The point is that both sides have defensible arguments that could be explored without resorting to name calling, and in my opinion the answer is somewhere in between. My guess is that both sides would be comfortable with a safety net that doesn't reward bad behavior. What do you think? Do you have an example of government encouraging or rewarding bad behavior? How about an example of government creating winners and losers?


Popular posts from this blog

Money for Nothing?

Despite recent setbacks over the last 30 years the US economy has grown by over 120% in constant dollars. This should be good news for all Americans, but there's something interesting about this period of time that's quite different from prior years.

Over most of the history of the US gains in GDP were shared more or less equally on a percentage basis among all income groups. This makes sense if you assume that the success of an enterprise, whether it's a small business or the country as a whole, is the result of the efforts of the group rather than a few individuals.

What's unusual about the last 30 years is that, unlike prior periods, the gains have gone exclusively to the upper 20% of wage earners, and the bulk of that to the top 1%.

My first reaction is that this just doesn't seem 'fair'. Shouldn't everyone participate in our country's financial success?

We know from history that there's no economic force that tends to favor equitable distr…

Lets Cut Taxes!

The Texas legislature is in session and a tax cut is on the agenda with two competing proposals. One is to reduce property taxes and the other is to reduce sales taxes. Which one is the best?

I've been complaining about property taxes for years, and since I'm close to retirement I see property taxes as an unending, uncontrollable, and increasing drain on my future fixed income. Sales taxes on the other hand are proportional to my spending, and so somewhat controllable. That's why I'd prefer the property tax cut.

But on further reflection I changed my mind. Here's why...

If government is going to work it needs to be fair, but historians and economists know that this isn't the natural order of things. Throughout history wealth has tended to become concentrated. People in power naturally act in their own self interest, and the result is to further increase their power and wealth. I don't see this as intentionally evil. It's simply the result of rational (a…

Free market fixes for climate change?

In her recent article for the Chicago Tribune titled "End climate change scare tactics; try free market fixes" Rachel Marsden dismisses President Obama's recent concerns about climate change as a threat to global security and goes on to suggest that although there is no way to control the earth's climate we can adjust by allowing multinational corporations to conquer the environment. Both of these claims seem misguided to me for a number of reasons.

As to the concern about security and the environment there are many documented cases of destruction of the environment by human action and subsequent societal collapse. The story of Easter Island is a good example, and may serve as a miniature version of what could happen globally.

As the earth's climate changes, areas that were marginally able to support the local population will suffer. And unfortunately the results are not self contained. Collapse results in lawlessness, chaos, and refugees who naturally head for t…