Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The issue of labeling in itself is very controversial. The problem can arise from
choosing the wrong label, labeling at the wrong time, or attempting to label a situation
that is unable to be labeled. Economics, as a study of human choice and interaction, tries
to label the world. However, when it comes into contact with morality it becomes fuzzy,
and the label that is chosen may not be correct, but it may be the least wrong. In this
instance I choose to label myself with not the perfect, but the most appropriate label. My
to protect progress and society's best interests. For the purposes of labeling I would call
myself an economic Republican who believes in the functioning of markets, but who
leans heavily toward the side of a social Democrat who tries to view costs in a social lens.
$2,000,000, but economically I see its use in comparing costs and benefits. Morally the
costs of always choosing economically are sometimes too high, and therefore
economically those costs may be too high, but then you enter into a viscous circle of
moral and economic reasoning. I feel I have learned throughout my experiences at school
and in life to accept a golden mean as the best way of accomplishing things, and too far
left or too far right would be just a little too far. Morality and economics are two
important disciplines, but I believe that they must work in conjunction to supplement the
other and not overpower it. I believe that taxes, trade, and business must be dealt with
economically, while health and poverty must be dealt with socially. When push comes to
allocatively efficient solution to problems, but I must add the addendum that markets
Jeremy Keeshin
cannot be the sole means to accomplish social good and that at times, extensive
My complex views arise from viewing "good" as the golden mean, and too much
or too little of a thing is not good. From my English class, I take certain literature to
support my claims. It is in the story of Icarus where he flies too close to the sun and
therefore fails. It is in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein where the doctor tries too hard to
create a human and in this way shows hubris and breaking the golden mean. I believe that
in my studies and in my life I try to achieve a well-rounded balance. It is for this reason
that I have chosen to take a course in each concentration every year and choose to
participate in activities ranging from varsity sports to academic competition. I feel that
good is achieved through the balance, which allies closely with the Republican view of
achieving equilibrium. I feel that any condemnation of views is too much, and this is
where I disagree with the overbearing Republican conservative social view. I see myself
as a small step to the left on the social, economic, and political spectrums. This would
label me as an economic Republican, but since social and economic interests are
business, which seems to be the idea most far away from morality, the Republican view
of markets is correct. I remember as a kid that my friend and I had a lemonade stand, and
it was in this way that we attempted to collect money. I believe that there are two types of
goods and services. There are those which are distantly removed from morality, such as
lemonade, or pizza, or a computer. But then there are those which are still goods and
services, but they tinge at a moral aspect of us. These are the drugs, environmental
Jeremy Keeshin
concerns of pollution, and medical aid type issues. It is these that I feel that markets,
although they are a good solution, are not most rapidly considered the best solution. I
think that with goods separated from morality, such as the lemonade stand, markets are
the best and most efficient way. I feel that goods that I can set a price on and be
comfortable with my morals are goods that should be left to markets. I walk into school
and I know that a pizza sale will sell for $1, $1.50, or $2; and I feel that it is fine to set a
price on this sort of good. It does not get as touchy setting a price on something this
distant from our moral code. I believe in market allocation of these types of goods
because that is most economically and allocatively efficient, and any other way will cause
a deadweight and welfare loss. It does not bother me to set prices on clothes and haircuts
and meals and art and buildings and rent, so markets are a viable and the best option to
However, I believe that with these moral goods, the welfare loss, and the lack of
efficiency is acceptable, because the goal of these goods is not efficiency. The goal of
medical care is health, and when you are the person who doesn’t receive health, you do
not worry that it will all be fine in the long run. John Maynard Keynes tells us that, “In
the long run, we’re all dead.” I agree with the Classical short run allocation of resources,
but I cannot accept their long run solution to societal problems. Classical economists
point out that in the long run the market may correct this societal problem, or that societal
problem, however, the flaw is that those problems must be dealt with in the short run. If
you are that poor person and you do not get on welfare, you may starve, and you do not
care that markets will correct your problem in the long run, because you need help now.
The Classical view to long run problems is negligent, because they look out for people in
Jeremy Keeshin
the long run in a way that will not help them. As a much more minor example, I can
relate a want of mine to this Classical flaw. Oftentimes during 5th period or right before
lunch I get rather hungry. At that time, the thoughts going through my mind are that ‘I am
hungry now, and I need to eat now, because I am very hungry now.’ If I do not have
money for food that day and cannot eat, I must rely on the assistance and generosity of
my friends to lend me a few dollars or let me use their card. I do not think to myself, ‘It
does not matter now that I am hungry, because in the long run the problem will correct
itself in the market.’ This is not the issue. Saying that a problem will be solved in the long
run misses the point if the need is in the short run. Saying that poverty will be cured by
long run economic growth is short-sighted because those poor need help and money now,
and an economist telling them it will all be okay later does not help a single thing.
This is part of my belief when it comes to poverty, social welfare, and medical
care. However with taxes I have a different opinion. I once read a joke that I feel
influenced me and made a very strong point about taxes and distribution of wealth:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her
age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of
the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she
openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional
chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire
to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and
the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity
proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He
responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know
that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and
was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she
knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college
friends because she spent all her time studying
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
Jeremy Keeshin
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never
studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a
blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up
for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to
deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you
will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of
GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That
wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and
a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while
I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."
This joke, among other things, sheds light into my opinion regarding taxes,
especially progressive taxes that attempt to redistribute wealth. I agree that that may be a
noble goal in society, but since income equality is such an unrealistic and idealistic goal, I
do not think it should be strived for. I come to this opinion by looking at Communism as
an ideal and realizing that this can never be achieved. Any idea of complete equality ends
in corruption and a small faction taking power. You can look at the current Gini
coefficients of countries around the world and notice that not one is close to income
equality of 0. The lowest are Sweden and Belgium with 25 (Factbook), and that is still a
ways away from perfect income equality of 0. I feel that in regards to my grades, I want
to keep what I earned, and I feel that when I enter the labor force, I will want to keep the
money that I earn. I do not see the logic in a progressive tax that provides a disincentive
to hard work, because I think people should be motivated to earn money so that they can
keep money. If it was possible, I would like to have no taxes, so everyone can keep
everything that they have earned, but I realize that is not realistic. I think competition and
motivation are good, and I think lower taxes allow this. It does not seem logical to me to
punish people for making money, so therefore it does not seem logical to me to have a
Jeremy Keeshin
progressive tax. Likewise it would not seem logical to me for everyone to all get the same
average grade, it would be better to allow competition and incentive and let people work
I want to make sure to clarify that this does not contradict my point before. I
believe in complete medical care and welfare programs, but this does not mean I
duty to dig into its endless pockets and promote welfare programs. I do not think that it
needs to tax the wealthy more. Also, in class this year I learned about the budget deficit
and it seems to be an arbitrary thing to me, because of the vague nature in which it is
calculated and what types of debt it keeps track of. For this reason I do not think it
matters much in terms of the deficit if the government receives less tax dollars and
increases spending and then increases the deficit. Of course there are other implications
in the realms of fiscal and monetary policy, but I think this is an overall solid policy.
Besides what I consider to be sound economic policy, the few major political
parties have very explicit and sometimes vague opinions of their own. The Republican
Party is in favor of tax cuts and letting people keep the money they earn. According to the
party platform, “In 2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress worked together
to pass the most sweeping tax relief in a generation. By letting families, workers, and
small business owners keep more of the money they earn, they helped bring America
argue that tax cuts have the immediate benefits of higher income, but in addition to that,
they also have positive consequences. Republicans show the facts that GPD grew at the
fastest rate in two decades, and consumer confidence is up, which are two positive things
Jeremy Keeshin
for the economy. They argue that their plans work because, “Real after-tax incomes are
up by 9.6 percent since December 2000” (Republican Party Platform). They argue
against a complex tax code that can get easily muddled and taken advantage of and are in
favor of a fairer, more straightforward code (Republican Party Platform). Most simply,
the current Republican platform is in favor of letting American families keep the money
they earn. The party is in favor of a decrease in government spending with simultaneous
and permanent tax cuts to increase overall economic prosperity for individuals as well as
small businesses . The Democratic Party argues against the Republicans, saying that they
only cater to the rich. They also believe in cutting taxes, mostly for the middle class.
They argue in their 2004 platform, “We should set taxes for families making
more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great
prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment” (Strong at
Home). They are for a more middle class, working America, and do not want the wealth
My thinking on the topic of tax reform closely parallels the Republican view, but I
also agree with some of the views expressed in the Democratic platform. I agree in letting
Americans keep their money all across the board, as the Republicans argue. However, I
also think that tax cuts for middle America are a positive idea as well. I think I lean closer
to the Republican view because I think that although Democrats want to cut taxes for the
middle class they do not want to cut them as much for the upper class. I think that the
Republican more global view is better for the economy, and as taxes are not a truly moral
subject, as they are more nominal, I think the more economically and allocatively
efficient solution is the best. Additionally, tax cuts have the obvious benefits of lower
Jeremy Keeshin
taxes to individuals and businesses, but they have the second benefit of increasing the
quality of the labor force and promoting skilled labor with incentives (Becker). I agree
with the Republican argument for a simple tax code that is not convoluted with complex
clauses. I think that a tax code that is as simple as it gets will help avoid tax evasion and
tax manipulation like is done, and if the tax is more straightforward and fair people will
not go out of their way as much to avoid them. In this instance, the Republicans choose
the more economically liberal perspective, which is usually the more pure economic
choice. Lower taxes for the rich, middle, and poor, I think are the best ways to provide
consumer incentive and promote consumer spending. I think this can be best
accomplished by the Republican incentive, but I also can see the merits and goals of the
Democrats; so on this issue I have the Republican view leaning slightly Democratic.
On the issue of international trade, I find myself leaning more Republican towards
allowing global markets to function. The Republican beliefs consist of free and fair trade
want to, “work with other countries to reduce barriers to our products and services”
(Republican Party Platform). Both the Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the
benefits of international trade, but the Republicans are arguably more for it. Both parties
acknowledge domestic gains from exports: The Republicans tell that: Exports accounted
for about 25 percent of the economic growth in the 1990s and supported about 12 million
jobs (Republican Party Platform), and the Democrats tell that: Exports sustain about 1 in
5 American factory jobs. Open markets spur innovation, speed the growth of new
industries, and make our businesses more competitive. We will make it a priority to
knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced trade soother nation's markets are as open
Jeremy Keeshin
as our own (Strong at Home). From this it appears that generally, both opposing parties
favor free trade and accessible markets. This is a more economically liberal policy and is
generally more Republican. It is only the nuances which reveal each parties sway. Both
try to promote maintaining domestic jobs, but it is only the Democrats who truly crack
down on outsourcing. The Democrats say they will “Fight for American jobs and we will
fight for American workers….We will revive America's manufacturing sector, create new
jobs and protect existing ones by ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas
and cutting taxes for companies that create jobs here at home” (Strong at Home). This is
more clearly a protectionist perspective and against the openness of markets. The
Republicans want to do more for fair trade and specifically they have goals to get China
My views on international trade side more towards the Republicans, but once
again I sympathize and lean towards the Democrats. I think that trade should be as free as
it can be and as fair as it can be and I do not think there should be any disclaimers. I think
when you talk about keeping domestic jobs and preventing outsourcing and off-shoring, I
stand even more towards a free global market view. I feel like a typical nationalist and
protectionist complaint is that we are losing jobs to countries where they can be done for
cheaper, like India and China. However I think this is a much different issue. In his
article, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich argues that jobs are not being lost, it is
just that the nature of jobs is changing. He argues that we are moving from an economy
filled with routine factory jobs to an economy based on jobs that he classifies as
“personal service” and “symbolic analysts” (Reich). I think that we are in a short term
time period experiencing domestic structural unemployment as routine jobs are becoming
Jeremy Keeshin
moot and unnecessary in the United States. The quality of the job is increasing in the
United States, while in countries like Mexico, India, and China, this type of job is still
heavily demanded because of the poor nature of their economy. I do not see outsourcing
and maintaining domestic jobs as a problem in our economy as the Democrats do. Both
parties obviously want people in the United States to have jobs. However I do not think it
is bad if many of the menial jobs get exported while demand for a different type of job
increases here. The problem here, as Reich mentions, is that domestic unemployment can
exist because young people are not educated enough or ready for the change in the type
of work. Many of these new jobs require a college education, and that is something that
should be more pursued that preventing outsourcing. Reich says, “The long-term solution
is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including
access to college” (Reich). As Reich argues and as the Republicans argue, I think free
The issue of health care, poverty, and government aid are very touchy and
important in our economy. The Democratic view is one that promotes a more universal
access to health care and really driving down costs. Additionally Democrats promote
welfare, as opposed to Republicans who are more for fostering independence in the poor
and not babying them with help. The Democrats argue, “Nearly 82 million Americans
went without health care coverage at some point in the last two years. And the President
has done nothing to bring costs down or lift these burdens. The few small proposals he
has offered would further divide our health system between one that is affordable for the
healthy and wealthy, and one that is unaffordable for the elderly, the sick, and
increasingly, for America's broad middle class (Strong at Home). They fault the
Jeremy Keeshin
Republicans for carrying an administration that does not offer health care to all, and
health care that costs too much to be accessible. Democrats “oppose privatizing
Medicare. We will not allow Republicans to destroy a commitment that has done so much
good for so many seniors and people with disabilities over the past 39 years. Instead, we
want to strengthen Medicare and make it more efficient” (Strong at Home). The
governmental Medicaid and Social Security system rather than getting care to all.
Democrats to not want the citizens to sacrifice one need for another: “We will end the
disgrace of seniors being forced to choose between meals and medication….In the
wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, no one should have to choose between taking
their child to a doctor and paying the rent” (Strong at Home). They want complete
On the issue of medical care and welfare I side closely with the Democrats. I feel
in this crucial issue, morality and care cannot be sacrificed for the goal of efficiency. I
think the most important value of medical care and government aid is that anyone who
needs it can get it. I recognize the concern of overuse of health care with subsidized
governmental payments, and this is acknowledged by both parties. I think health care that
is public, affordable, and accessible to all should complement a private medical sector.
This issue should not be one that is completely private or completely public, but the
bottom line is, whichever way it is done, everyone must have access to it. Lou O’Malley
argues that it is great that the United States has this fantastic quality health care, but it is
terrible that not everyone has access. He argues that the care is great, if you happen to be
making an income over $125,000 (O’Malley). This is the flaw in American health care: It
Jeremy Keeshin
would be great, if everyone could get it. This is why I side with the Democratic argument
to try and get health care accessible to everyone at a cost that is affordable to them,
because there should never be a point where someone cannot be helped because they
don’t have the money, as is the case in the move “John Q.” I also believe that with
governmental aid and welfare programs must be provided, but that the new TANF
program will make strides to relieve dependence. I think that welfare is necessary in the
short run, because when people need help they must get it then, but that it is not a long
run solution. I think that dependence on welfare must be eased off like a nicotine patch,
decreasing payments and promoting independence. Overall this causes me to side with
the Democrats on the issue of health care and welfare, but I acknowledge Republican
On many of the issues in our country I find myself siding with the Republicans on
an issue I find purely economic, such as business interest, trade, and taxes; but I find
myself siding with the Democrats on moral societal and economic issues like health care,
welfare, and Social Security. I think that something that is distant from morality can be
dealt with economically, but I do not think this is the case for all goods and services. In
the realm of medical care and poverty, where when you need something you need it now,
a Classical long run market solution is not satisfactory. It is in this instance where I feel
government intervention and its inefficiencies are necessary. I think that as a society we
must look out for both our social and economic good, but when pressing problems arise,
inefficiencies must be forgotten so that people can be handed as people, not numbers,
Works Cited
“2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America.” The
www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf>.
Becker, Gary S., et al. “The Double Benefit of Tax Cuts.” Wall Street Journal 7 Oct.
2003.
O’Malley, Lou. “A fix for health care is coming; let’s make sure we’re all included.”
Reich, Robert B. “Nice Work if You Can Get It.” Wall Street Journal 26 Dec. 2003.
"Strong at Home, Respected in the World: The 2004 Democratic National Platform for
df>.
The World Factbook. 15 May 2007. Central Intelligence Agency. 26 May 2007 <
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html>.