Dear Matt,

In the immortal words of John Lennon, "We need money first."

Love,
Kenneth and Andrei

Pundit-speak.

They get paid by the word.

Publish or perish applies to pundits far more than it does to academics - who have seniority.

In Cherny and Baer's new publication Democracy Journal, there are a couple of interesting articles - and a couple of turkeys.

The most stimulating piece, I thought, was this one by economist Gar Alperovitz. Now here's an idea:

The most far-reaching effort so far proposed, however, is that of Yale Professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott. This would provide every young person a "capital stake" of $80,000 on reaching adulthood, to be used for any purpose they chose. An interesting wrinkle here challenges existing wealth inequality directly: the program would be financed through a 2 percent wealth tax. Bill Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins of United for a Fair Economy have suggested an additional angle of attack that, like the Ackerman-Alstott approach, also simultaneously challenges existing wealth inequality through the tax code. They propose a revised estate tax to begin at $2.5 million in assets, with the proceeds used to support a "wealth-building" fund to finance a variety of individual and community-benefiting strategies.

Yessir. That's what I'm talking about. What could be more exciting than some good old egalitarian redistribution - take from the filthy rich and give the rest of us more money. This stuff makes me tingle.

Alperovitz speaks favorably of "communal involvement in the means by which that wealth is produce", and cites John Adams wise line "the balance of power in a society accompanies the balance of property." One detects in this presentation some big ideas traditionally defended and articulated by - dare I say it - the left. Say it, brother.

But much of the egalitarian and redistributive (even socialistic? shhhh...) excitement is drained from Alperovitz's essay by dressing the fun stuff up in "progressive ownership society" rhetoric and wonky community development talk. It's as though we sit down to hear a swashbuckling Robin Hood tale, and the reader turns out to be Mike Dukakis reading from that old book on Swedish land use. And this is part of the problem, and the yearning for big ideas. There are definitely some big ideas out there, but discourse at the elite level has been so colonized by conservative thinking on the one hand, and academic-bureaucratic wonkery on the other, that even the good, ennervating stuff has to struggle against the chains of embarrassment and fear to stand up tall and straight and bold. One can't see the exciting progressive swans hiding among the ugly duckling centrist banalities and uptight, sang-froid professorial formulas.

Boy is my face red. And me a Stevens fan.

My excuse is MY's reputation as a non-fiction reader.

Penance is googling and reading the poem.

even the good, ennervating stuff.

 Ennervating (sic) is  doubly wrong. Enervating means "depriving of energy" . It's a shame to weaken your interesting post otherwise I wouldn't nit pick. 

BTW Mike Dukakis- the friend of a friend- is an exceptionally nice man. Not that your amusing hypothesis suggests othewise.

The most far-reaching effort so far proposed, however, is that of Yale Professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott. This would provide every young person a "capital stake" of $80,000 on reaching adulthood, to be used for any purpose they chose.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Is this really what passes for an idea? Take money from some people and give it to others? Wow, that's never been done. But I can actually improve on this idea i think. Why don't we make it a million dollars! That way, when you "reach adulthood", you're automatically rich and you don't have to work! The money can come from all those awful rich people who have too much money! It's brilliant!

Pale Ramon wants a pony -- and so should we all.