"The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production."
Sez who? Larry Kudlow, Phil Gramm or some other so-called economist from the right as they mechanically spout off their simplistic, one-sided and predictable view of the world?
No, according to an NY Times Magazine article by David Leonhardt (to be published Sunday), it is our presumptive nominee. Senator Barack Obama.
My jaw dropped at first when I read that quote. But one should not be so surprised.
Since at least the onset of his current campaign, Obama has always come across as a pragmatist who would occasionally bow down to the almighty market. "My core economic theory is pragmatism ... figuring out what works," he is quoted as saying early in this piece.
His exposure to University of Chicago dogma (while teaching law there) was a big influence, and there could be a justifiable concern that such ideology has tainted his overall views.
But fear not. There are many reassuring passages in this article.
As someone who once acquired a graduate degree in Economics, I myself have spent many years since then trying to deprogram myself from much of the market-oriented dogma that pervaded my instruction. (Many of you in the kos kommunity have been helpful in that front.)
So when I come across evidence in this article that our candidate is properly balancing ideology and reason, I have grounds to cheer. Witness the following:
... in Obama’s view, the risks to market-based capitalism now have more to do with too little regulation than too much. He can sound almost righteous on this point. He talked to me about the need for a moral element to capitalism and said that the crony capitalism of recent years should be the nightmare of any market-loving economist.
That is promising. The promotion of a moral capitalism would be a huge positive change in this country and would have broad political appeal if expressed properly. Even the most dyed-in the wool pro-business types are getting weary of the cronyism and corruptionism of the Bush era.
But the biggest eye opener in this writeup is the progressiveness of Obama's proposed taxation policy. After linking out to and reviewing a study by the Tax Policy Center, Leonhardt offers this:
All told, Obama would not only cut taxes for most people more than McCain would. He would cut them more than Bill Clinton did and more than Hillary Clinton proposed doing.
And he provides some impressive numbers to back that up.
While most of Obama's economic pronouncements are palatable to progressives, his primary debate performances might have led one to believe that his tax policy was going to be more of that same-old Republican free-lunch promise. That there would be no specifics on what income brackets would inevitably have to pay more. I'm sure that his more nuanced position has been out there, just don't think it has been getting across.
This is partly because Obama still suffers from the perception that he is so charismatic, he must lack substance.
But in spite of his charisma, the Senator seems a bit long-winded as he tries to sum up via what he calls a pretty simple story:
"... what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it’s now a global marketplace.
"Now, that’s the story. Now, telling it elegantly — ‘low taxes, smaller government’ — the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge."
So there you go. The challenge of distilling this message into something easy to digest, as always, remains elusive, even for our leader.
But in my view, the kos kommunity is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating ideas and resources to maximize the execution of a progressive leader's vision.
So, how about it? Can we help him out? Can we turn his taxation, regulation and entitlement stance into an overall economic vision that he can, if you'll pardon the cliché, slam out of the park?