MeDroogies,
Economics teaches me that monitory step functions cause disturbances that I consider problematic.
For example (one that Joe six pack could understand); taxing income at 50% for anything over say $100,000. causes a gap in the actual incomes that are possible to make (profitably). So when I'm worth (and paid) that much, I can't earn a 10% raise till I can get someone to pay me $220,000. - Heaven forbid my supervisor should get upset with me and give me a Nickle raise!
If one thinks it's a good thing for society that salaries between 100k & 200k are virtually illegal, OK, but I defy you to predict the consequences. So the principle is important, not the tax rates, or the level of income someone considers excessive, (the quantities). I'm willing to admit that minimum wages of $1/day for college graduates probably wouldn't do any harm in principle, but only because they would have no effect at all. It would seem that such a policy can't do any good until it can do unlimited harm, and that is a qualitative issue as I see it.
At the margins, you may be able to get some non-cash benefits that are not taxed, like health insurance, cars, or expense accounts. But if you go too far, the government will step in to halt the evil of three martini lunches to great fanfare. Filling the gaps that must be filled are couched in terms "immoral" or "illegal". The taxers thereby gain authority to “fix” what they broke, by micro managing all the second, third and N level effects that are by implication “wrong”.
IMHO;
The qualitative view attempts to discern what qualities the principles engender.
The quantitative view attempts to draw the lines at exactly the correct place to accomplish some purpose, and the proponents seem free to ignore the consequences because the opponents (me and my ilk) can't predict them exactly, or even approximately.
When Uncle Milty was asked if he could paraphrase the contents of his book “Free to Choose”, he responded; “sure, there ain't no free lunch”. In my view, that is a qualitative response.
I consider the transparency or opaqueness of tax law for example to be a qualitative issue.
I am not an economist, but I wish it was a required course by fifth grade or so. On the other hand, I have a Samuelson workbook stating that it's not clear if communism or capitalism is the best model for mankind. For those of you not familiar with “SAMUELSON ECONOMICS”, it's one ubiquitous textbook in the field of college economics, my copy is eighth edition of 1970. I wonder how many classes of “economists” accept the moral equivalence (USA vs Soviet Union) opinion of Paul A. Samuelson, the MIT Institute professor, and author.
So while I despair when the average Joe has no concept of the time value of money, thereby being vulnerable to misunderstanding the simple term “discount” for future payments, I wonder what sort of indoctrination would be substituted for economics in public schools if I had my wish.
I have always considered economics essentially the study of how people relate to one another.
Perhaps there are better terms, but I have always felt comfortable with the concept that the qualitative vs. quantitative economic outlook (as I observe and describe it) describes much of the disparity I see in the world views people hold.
HELP! - I hope I don't belittle an important idea by the wrong choice of words or terms.
Ricardo |
