Will Willkinson on Money and Politics
futureofcapitalism.com

The Economist's Will Wilkinson writes, "Though I've happily moved on, both occupationally and ideologically, I've spent most of my professional life in libertarian institutions founded or supported by the Kochs."

He goes on:

money is not all that easily translated into effective political influence. Most rich people just thoughtlessly fling cash at causes and candidates they happen to like to little real effect. Indeed, a good deal of political spending is part of moneyed status-signaling games; whether the money makes a difference to anything but the donor's reputation is beside the point. In any case, much effort is devoted simply to neutralising the spending of opposed ideological teams, and the whole racket largely amounts to redistribution from the rich to somewhat less rich political consultants and nonprofit managers.

Read More...

A Stoll-Wilkinson Colloquy
futureofcapitalism.com

There was an interesting little dialogue on Twitter yesterday between me and Will Wilkinson, who blogs for the Economist. It went like this:

Wilkinson: What financial reforms could be reasonably expected to both improve allocation of capital & slow top 1% income growth?

Stoll: Why is "slow top 1% income growth" a goal? Why not speed up everyone else?

Wilkinson: There is a well-founded suspicion, which I share, that the financial sector has distributed upward without boosting growth.

Stoll: Plenty of top 1% not in financial sector. Oprah, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Brin, pro athletes, actors, cardiac surgeons, Bezos

Wilkinson: Sure. For much of this set, we can slow wealth-accumulation while improving efficiency by reconfiguring IP rights.

Read More...

A Stoll-Wilkinson Colloquy
futureofcapitalism.com

There was an interesting little dialogue on Twitter yesterday between me and Will Wilkinson, who blogs for the Economist. It went like this:

Wilkinson: What financial reforms could be reasonably expected to both improve allocation of capital & slow top 1% income growth?

Stoll: Why is "slow top 1% income growth" a goal? Why not speed up everyone else?

Wilkinson: There is a well-founded suspicion, which I share, that the financial sector has distributed upward without boosting growth.

Stoll: Plenty of top 1% not in financial sector. Oprah, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Brin, pro athletes, actors, cardiac surgeons, Bezos

Wilkinson: Sure. For much of this set, we can slow wealth-accumulation while improving efficiency by reconfiguring IP rights.

Read More...

Will Willkinson on Money and Politics
futureofcapitalism.com

The Economist's Will Wilkinson writes, "Though I've happily moved on, both occupationally and ideologically, I've spent most of my professional life in libertarian institutions founded or supported by the Kochs."

He goes on:

money is not all that easily translated into effective political influence. Most rich people just thoughtlessly fling cash at causes and candidates they happen to like to little real effect. Indeed, a good deal of political spending is part of moneyed status-signaling games; whether the money makes a difference to anything but the donor's reputation is beside the point. In any case, much effort is devoted simply to neutralising the spending of opposed ideological teams, and the whole racket largely amounts to redistribution from the rich to somewhat less rich political consultants and nonprofit managers.

Read More...