If “economics” is isolated from other aspects of social life, then the criterion for policymakers becomes the simple one of efficiency. Expenditure, and government policy generally, is to be viewed in terms of whether or not a program pays, whether it creates incentives for the private sector to expand output and employment. In a market economy [sic], government must depend on tax collection, and this in turn depends on the level of economic activity–which depends on the expectation of profit. In the economist’s view, if tax incentives can attract or retain business, they should be granted. The income redistribution effects [sic] of such policies may be regressive but this is simply an unavoidable consequence of a market economy: government can step in after production decisions are made and through tax expenditure policies rectify any damage that may have resulted. How much and what type of action it will take will be decided in the political arena.
Yet government, especially at the local level, in under constant pressure not to redistribute from the rich to the poor.
–William K. Tabb, The Long Default : New York City and the Urban Fiscal Crisis.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
The Economics-Politics Distinction: The Shift from the Welfare to the Predator State
leave a comment »
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Written by David Kaib
November 23, 2012 at 10:51 am
Posted in Submitted without comment
Tagged with austerity, economics, framing, inequality, market fundamentalism, politics, poverty, Predator State, William Tabb