Changing the accents

Every weekday morning, as part of my "transition into the day," I read a short piece by a guy who has been around the wealth management world for many decades and has been writing more or less weekly in various places: newsletters, publications, etc. In so doing he has evolved a rather consistent and reasonable way of thinking about markets, economics, people, etc.

He falls to the right of me on the political spectrum. In what I read today (written in 2003), a piece concerning tax policy and election cycles, he made some snarky reference to the fact that his family makes a lot of money because it works its butt off. Affluent people often talk like this, framing themselves as the victims of tax policy.

But who can blame them, as Democrats (and similar parties worldwide) often frame the need for tax hikes in terms of class struggle? But it would be interesting to see Democrats reframe this in Kennedyesque language ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country") or even parable of the talents language ("Of those to whom much is given, much is asked"). Democrats could acknowledge and express gratitude to those who pay a lot in taxes, but not grovel before them, or at least figure out how to walk a middle road.

Ultimately, and this is something I think about a lot, so I'm sure I've blogged about it recently, we are trying to figure out what's the optimal way of allocating capital towards broadly construed goods: education, health, productivity, happiness. What is the best allocator: state or markets/private citizens? Obviously, the answer differs by the nature of the specific good in question and the specific historic circumstances and culture around it in a time and place, so we never find one answer.

But the constant vilification of a class makes things difficult. In the present, for example, if it comes down to a fight between Zuckerberg and Warren, who do we think wins? The sad truth of the matter is that it may well be Trump.