I favor making it easy for people to start a business, but I don't think 'decentralize' is a good term for this: many of the government regulations that currently make this hard are at the local or state level.
I think Caplan's aphorism is a bit reductive, at least in this case. The issue, I think, is that the donor class has different priorities than the base, and both groups have their own internal fault lines, on top of that, which prevents anything close to a consensus from forming. The donor class is friendlier to markets overall, but is compromised by the fact that all of them have an incentive to defect and support regulations that benefit them personally, as in the prisoner's dilemma. The base is more animated by "God, Guns, and Gays" type issues in the first place, and even if it weren't, the last 40 years or so have not been kind to the economies of small towns and rural areas, where these folks are concentrated, so I think when a lot of them hear the term "free markets," what it sounds like to them is "more jobs offshored to Southeast Asia."
K-12 is a government run behemoth. But early childhood + pre-k are already mostly run by small, private, non-government outfits.
I fully support free markets and the mindset of Kling's plan of defund, dismantle, decentralize.
My big criticism of Kling is that he writes frequent essays advocating libertarian free markets and restrained government. But his political punditry has generally been in the opposite direction. When it comes to a political fight, he quickly loses interest in the free markets and restrained government ideology, and focuses entirely on the personality quirks of the candidates or focus on which voter base annoys him the most, and advocate in the exact opposite direction of free markets and restrained government spending.
‘ Caplan’s aphorism that the left hates markets and the right hates the left. ’
I see no evidence that the Right loves markets. Both Left and Right distort markets to their political advantage, often adopting what had been put in place by the previous regime.
I have no idea what Right is these days except an alternative spelling for Left.
I think you discount the right too much. If we look at recent example of the fda's project equity, having no plan to address diversity in clinical trials is better.
First, the lack of diversity is direct result of fda regulation. Many insurance companies will not pay for experimental treatment, especially low cost insurance - I would bet all obamacare plans do not cover it.
Second, if clinical trials should be part of treatment choices, why is the fda restricting access?
Third, it was not too long ago that trying to study why African Americans had a higher incidence of a particular cancer would be enough to kill a grant proposal or a publication - I bet more than a few researchers are dusting off grant ideas from 5 years back.
I could go on and on, but if someone were to ask me - what is my plan to increase diversity in clinical trials - I do not have one, since deregulation is a nonstarter. Another layer of moronic regulation will most likely make matters worse not better.
I favor making it easy for people to start a business, but I don't think 'decentralize' is a good term for this: many of the government regulations that currently make this hard are at the local or state level.
I think Caplan's aphorism is a bit reductive, at least in this case. The issue, I think, is that the donor class has different priorities than the base, and both groups have their own internal fault lines, on top of that, which prevents anything close to a consensus from forming. The donor class is friendlier to markets overall, but is compromised by the fact that all of them have an incentive to defect and support regulations that benefit them personally, as in the prisoner's dilemma. The base is more animated by "God, Guns, and Gays" type issues in the first place, and even if it weren't, the last 40 years or so have not been kind to the economies of small towns and rural areas, where these folks are concentrated, so I think when a lot of them hear the term "free markets," what it sounds like to them is "more jobs offshored to Southeast Asia."
K-12 is a government run behemoth. But early childhood + pre-k are already mostly run by small, private, non-government outfits.
I fully support free markets and the mindset of Kling's plan of defund, dismantle, decentralize.
My big criticism of Kling is that he writes frequent essays advocating libertarian free markets and restrained government. But his political punditry has generally been in the opposite direction. When it comes to a political fight, he quickly loses interest in the free markets and restrained government ideology, and focuses entirely on the personality quirks of the candidates or focus on which voter base annoys him the most, and advocate in the exact opposite direction of free markets and restrained government spending.
Would loosening the restrictions on high skilled and talented immigrants and freer trade count in your plan?
How about moving employees to buy their own health insurance rather than having firms do it for them with their money?
Why exempt just low wages from the wage tax. Why not substitute a VAT instead?
And why vouchers for child care rather than just a generous child tax credit If it all was not used for child care, is that necessary bad?
Wouldn't a tax on net CO2 and methane emissions count at creating a sort of market where there currently is none to "interfere" with?
‘ Caplan’s aphorism that the left hates markets and the right hates the left. ’
I see no evidence that the Right loves markets. Both Left and Right distort markets to their political advantage, often adopting what had been put in place by the previous regime.
I have no idea what Right is these days except an alternative spelling for Left.
I think you discount the right too much. If we look at recent example of the fda's project equity, having no plan to address diversity in clinical trials is better.
First, the lack of diversity is direct result of fda regulation. Many insurance companies will not pay for experimental treatment, especially low cost insurance - I would bet all obamacare plans do not cover it.
Second, if clinical trials should be part of treatment choices, why is the fda restricting access?
Third, it was not too long ago that trying to study why African Americans had a higher incidence of a particular cancer would be enough to kill a grant proposal or a publication - I bet more than a few researchers are dusting off grant ideas from 5 years back.
I could go on and on, but if someone were to ask me - what is my plan to increase diversity in clinical trials - I do not have one, since deregulation is a nonstarter. Another layer of moronic regulation will most likely make matters worse not better.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fda-takes-important-steps-to-increase-racial-and-ethnic-diversity-in-clinical-trials-301524987.html