|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 28, 2014 21:49:02 GMT -8
In case you have not heard of him, this guy Piketty, a Frenchman who has not left Paris in nearly 20 years, has written a new book that has sent a thrill up the legs (well, at least the left legs) of Leftists everywhere. Piketty thinks capitalism has failed and that the government, world government ideally, should confiscate 80% of the wealth of the rich. Not 80% of a rich person's annual income but 80% of said person's WEALTH. Hey, surely the government knows better than you do how to spend your money, right? Apparently, Piketty has missed a few key points, as this piece explains. www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/29/thomas_piketty_wants_income_equality_--_and_the_hell_with_growth_122443-comments.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 29, 2014 6:57:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 29, 2014 9:48:07 GMT -8
And when Leftists are in a bind, they play the "inequality" card. Yeah, I had already read the Krugman piece. Not buying it. Capitalism is not perfect, of course. But when those on the Left try to tell me that we would be better off if government was a whole lot bigger and took on even more tasks formerly left to private citizens, I roll my eyes. I should restate part of that last statement. Collectivists seek to take on tasks that were never previously considered even doable by anyone, much less desirable. No system other than a grindingly brutal police state might (repeat MIGHT) be able to achieve income equality. In a society in which the people are even modestly free to pursue their own goals by dealing freely with other people, inequality is inevitable. A Bill Gates is going to end up rich, or at any rate well off, while Joe Winebottle down on Skid Row is going to end up a bum. Those are extreme examples, of course. In a society with a more-or-less free economy, most people will do reasonably well unless they make catastrophic life decisions. Such as becoming dependent on drugs or being convicted of serious crimes. Income quality is, in and of itself, not desireable. What is desireable is the creation of a society that gives the individual the greatest degree of freedom. Freedom, not equality, should be our goal. Those on the Left believe just the opposite. How inequality comes about is a vital question. North Korea is an interesting case demonstrating what happens when a country is ruled by a supposedly communistic minority intent on maintaining its priviledges and power at any cost. Any cost to the average North Korean, that is. The government hacks and the military are given preferential treatment and the common citizens are almost literally starved; For instance the average height of N. Korean men is two or three inches shorter than those of S. Korea. In a free market economy, or at any rate in an economy that is reasonably free, some people are going to thrive. Others, for a variety of reasons, will not. We should ask ourselves this question; Would we rather be poor in a capitalist society or of average means in a society dominated by a collectivist government? What price in personal freedom are we willing to pay to erase differences in wealth between the richest and poorest among us? It seems to me Barone has listed a number of very important shortcomings in Picketty's book, shortcomings that Krugman and others like him are all to willing to overlook. Collectivists, those who see society in terms of groups and group action rather than individual human beings, suffer from a fatal flaw in their thinking. That flaw can be stated easily; they are utopians. Utopians seek a perfect world. Not a better world, which everyone wants, but a perfect one. And in order to achieve that dubious goal, collectivists are willing to increase the power of the state and reduce the freedom of the individual. All that will do is make the average citizen poorer and enrich the apparatchiks who will inevitably have the power in a society that rejects the concepts of liberty that were the foundation of this country. I suggest you reread, or perhaps actually read completely, Barone's piece. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 29, 2014 12:01:18 GMT -8
You must read the comments to get a sense of how people think. I must also ask how any attempt at income equality can not shortly end up with a general lowering of the Standard of living on average of us all. Take away the incentive to achieve and you end up getting more and more people unwilling to carry the load for the slugs of society.
The mention of Krugman above always makes me gag. Just when has he ever been right about anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 29, 2014 12:55:22 GMT -8
You must read the comments to get a sense of how people think. I must also ask how any attempt at income equality can not shortly end up with a general lowering of the Standard of living on average of us all. Take away the incentive to achieve and you end up getting more and more people unwilling to carry the load for the slugs of society. The mention of Krugman above always makes me gag. Just when has he ever been right about anything? Krugman has zero credibility on the subject. Ol' Rat-Face is a hypocrite. "Whether or not Krugman’s scholarship and teaching ability warrant such a superior salary is certainly worthy of debate, but the real issue for most commentators is not how much CUNY will pay Krugman, but how little they are asking him to do. CUNY is essentially offering him what used to be called a sinecure. Like ecclesiastical appointments “without the care of souls,” the terms of Krugman’s contract require him to do almost nothing his first year and then teach just one graduate seminar each year for as long as he would like to stay at CUNY." www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/04/21/essay-what-hiring-paul-krugman-says-about-values-public-higher-education#sthash.chVNu1Lq.dpbs |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 29, 2014 14:22:38 GMT -8
You must read the comments to get a sense of how people think. I must also ask how any attempt at income equality can not shortly end up with a general lowering of the Standard of living on average of us all. Take away the incentive to achieve and you end up getting more and more people unwilling to carry the load for the slugs of society. The mention of Krugman above always makes me gag. Just when has he ever been right about anything? Thanks for asking. www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/krugman-high-plains-moochers.html?_r=0The dumbing down of the right rings true. I wonder if Krugman reads your post on this board?  |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Apr 29, 2014 14:52:30 GMT -8
In a society with a more-or-less free economy, most people will do reasonably well unless they make catastrophic life decisions. Such as becoming dependent on drugs or being convicted of serious crimes. Surely, not even you actually believe this nonsense. Maybe you didn't express your point clearly enough. You know less about "the left", whatever that is, than you think you do. Quite the contrary. "Collectivists", whatever you consider that group of people to be, believe that the government can and should be a force to improve our world and make it a better one. No one believes in utopia. The fatal flaw in your Randian thinking is that collective action cannot improve our world - it most obviously can, has, and will continue to do so. In your pursuit of fierce individualism, you become immune to this fact. I believe most like you have a sincere distrust and dislike of most people you meet, and have given up on trying to craft a world for your children better than the one we currently live in. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 29, 2014 14:54:03 GMT -8
You must read the comments to get a sense of how people think. I must also ask how any attempt at income equality can not shortly end up with a general lowering of the Standard of living on average of us all. Take away the incentive to achieve and you end up getting more and more people unwilling to carry the load for the slugs of society. The mention of Krugman above always makes me gag. Just when has he ever been right about anything? Thanks for asking. www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/krugman-high-plains-moochers.html?_r=0The dumbing down of the right rings true. I wonder if Krugman reads your post on this board? As usual, Krugman ignores the major point about Bundy and that is not his short comings which are admitted, but fails to pin the tail on the timid fellows who wanted to be seen as heavy handed thugs from BLM who were faced down. I read Krugman even though I know it is a waste of time since he never gets anything correct. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 29, 2014 14:56:10 GMT -8
In a society with a more-or-less free economy, most people will do reasonably well unless they make catastrophic life decisions. Such as becoming dependent on drugs or being convicted of serious crimes. Surely, not even you actually believe this nonsense. Maybe you didn't express your point clearly enough. You know less about "the left", whatever that is, than you think you do. Quite the contrary. "Collectivists", whatever you consider that group of people to be, believe that the government can and should be a force to improve our world and make it a better one. No one believes in utopia. The fatal flaw in your Randian thinking is that collective action cannot improve our world - it most obviously can, has, and will continue to do so. In your pursuit of fierce individualism, you become immune to this fact. I believe most like you have a sincere distrust and dislike of most people you meet, and have given up on trying to craft a world for your children better than the one we currently live in. A feeble attempt to reply by a naïve and ill informed poster. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Apr 29, 2014 15:03:50 GMT -8
A feeble attempt to reply by a naïve and ill informed poster. Funny, because even though William is often misguided (I know he's old enough that his views aren't going to change), he can actually put together an argument worth responding to. You, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 29, 2014 17:22:28 GMT -8
And when Leftists are in a bind, they play the "inequality" card. Yeah, I had already read the Krugman piece. Not buying it. Capitalism is not perfect, of course. But when those on the Left try to tell me that we would be better off if government was a whole lot bigger and took on even more tasks formerly left to private citizens, I roll my eyes. I should restate part of that last statement. Collectivists seek to take on tasks that were never previously considered even doable by anyone, much less desirable. No system other than a grindingly brutal police state might (repeat MIGHT) be able to achieve income equality. In a society in which the people are even modestly free to pursue their own goals by dealing freely with other people, inequality is inevitable. A Bill Gates is going to end up rich, or at any rate well off, while Joe Winebottle down on Skid Row is going to end up a bum. Those are extreme examples, of course. In a society with a more-or-less free economy, most people will do reasonably well unless they make catastrophic life decisions. Such as becoming dependent on drugs or being convicted of serious crimes. Income quality is, in and of itself, not desireable. What is desireable is the creation of a society that gives the individual the greatest degree of freedom. Freedom, not equality, should be our goal. Those on the Left believe just the opposite. How inequality comes about is a vital question. North Korea is an interesting case demonstrating what happens when a country is ruled by a supposedly communistic minority intent on maintaining its priviledges and power at any cost. Any cost to the average North Korean, that is. The government hacks and the military are given preferential treatment and the common citizens are almost literally starved; For instance the average height of N. Korean men is two or three inches shorter than those of S. Korea. In a free market economy, or at any rate in an economy that is reasonably free, some people are going to thrive. Others, for a variety of reasons, will not. We should ask ourselves this question; Would we rather be poor in a capitalist society or of average means in a society dominated by a collectivist government? What price in personal freedom are we willing to pay to erase differences in wealth between the richest and poorest among us? It seems to me Barone has listed a number of very important shortcomings in Picketty's book, shortcomings that Krugman and others like him are all to willing to overlook. Collectivists, those who see society in terms of groups and group action rather than individual human beings, suffer from a fatal flaw in their thinking. That flaw can be stated easily; they are utopians. Utopians seek a perfect world. Not a better world, which everyone wants, but a perfect one. And in order to achieve that dubious goal, collectivists are willing to increase the power of the state and reduce the freedom of the individual. All that will do is make the average citizen poorer and enrich the apparatchiks who will inevitably have the power in a society that rejects the concepts of liberty that were the foundation of this country. I suggest you reread, or perhaps actually read completely, Barone's piece. AzWm I consider myself a liberal, William. I do not recognize my philosophy of government and society in your description. We have down this road before. You through out some libertarian/conservative foolishness about what I believe. I point out your errors. You still persist in lying. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 29, 2014 17:40:40 GMT -8
A feeble attempt to reply by a naïve and ill informed poster. Funny, because even though William is often misguided (I know he's old enough that his views aren't going to change), he can actually put together an argument worth responding to. You, on the other hand... I suggest that you read your flippant attempts at responses to William. You can hardly construct an argument in response to trite nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 29, 2014 17:50:16 GMT -8
And when Leftists are in a bind, they play the "inequality" card. Yeah, I had already read the Krugman piece. Not buying it. Capitalism is not perfect, of course. But when those on the Left try to tell me that we would be better off if government was a whole lot bigger and took on even more tasks formerly left to private citizens, I roll my eyes. I should restate part of that last statement. Collectivists seek to take on tasks that were never previously considered even doable by anyone, much less desirable. No system other than a grindingly brutal police state might (repeat MIGHT) be able to achieve income equality. In a society in which the people are even modestly free to pursue their own goals by dealing freely with other people, inequality is inevitable. A Bill Gates is going to end up rich, or at any rate well off, while Joe Winebottle down on Skid Row is going to end up a bum. Those are extreme examples, of course. In a society with a more-or-less free economy, most people will do reasonably well unless they make catastrophic life decisions. Such as becoming dependent on drugs or being convicted of serious crimes. Income quality is, in and of itself, not desireable. What is desireable is the creation of a society that gives the individual the greatest degree of freedom. Freedom, not equality, should be our goal. Those on the Left believe just the opposite. How inequality comes about is a vital question. North Korea is an interesting case demonstrating what happens when a country is ruled by a supposedly communistic minority intent on maintaining its priviledges and power at any cost. Any cost to the average North Korean, that is. The government hacks and the military are given preferential treatment and the common citizens are almost literally starved; For instance the average height of N. Korean men is two or three inches shorter than those of S. Korea. In a free market economy, or at any rate in an economy that is reasonably free, some people are going to thrive. Others, for a variety of reasons, will not. We should ask ourselves this question; Would we rather be poor in a capitalist society or of average means in a society dominated by a collectivist government? What price in personal freedom are we willing to pay to erase differences in wealth between the richest and poorest among us? It seems to me Barone has listed a number of very important shortcomings in Picketty's book, shortcomings that Krugman and others like him are all to willing to overlook. Collectivists, those who see society in terms of groups and group action rather than individual human beings, suffer from a fatal flaw in their thinking. That flaw can be stated easily; they are utopians. Utopians seek a perfect world. Not a better world, which everyone wants, but a perfect one. And in order to achieve that dubious goal, collectivists are willing to increase the power of the state and reduce the freedom of the individual. All that will do is make the average citizen poorer and enrich the apparatchiks who will inevitably have the power in a society that rejects the concepts of liberty that were the foundation of this country. I suggest you reread, or perhaps actually read completely, Barone's piece. AzWm I consider myself a liberal, William. I do not recognize my philosophy of government and society in your description. We have down this road before. You through out some libertarian/conservative foolishness about what I believe. I point out your errors. You still persist in lying. Why is that? You must be responding to something other than what you quoted from AztecWilliam. It must not even be to anything in this thread. I see no statement that could be construed a lie. When did resorting in such shrill language ever make any points in any discussion? I suggest that at times like these where people like Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are such weak and inarticulate representatives of liberalism that the people who profess to be liberals become frustrated and resort to crude tactics like accusing people of lies. You should be ashamed! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 29, 2014 18:20:55 GMT -8
Of course, you don't, you believe the same thing as he. If it were not for the foolish threads you and William start this board would be not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Apr 29, 2014 18:50:37 GMT -8
Funny, because even though William is often misguided (I know he's old enough that his views aren't going to change), he can actually put together an argument worth responding to. You, on the other hand... I suggest that you read your flippant attempts at responses to William. You can hardly construct an argument in response to trite nonsense. you're a daily dose of amusement and perspective. thank you for that! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 30, 2014 22:17:53 GMT -8
I have learned that, no matter how well-intentioned a government may be, it is far more likely that it will end up doing more harm than good when it goes beyond the limited list of necessary governmental functions that everybody agrees on.
Everybody agrees that the government must provide an effective military capable of protecting the nation against foreign enemies.
Everybody agrees the government should create a system of currency and keep that currency as stable as possible.
Everybody agrees the government must build roads, bridges, and dams. (Not exclusively, of course. There are privately constructed roads, bridges, and dams.)
Everybody agrees that the government should hold fair and open elections so that legislative actions will be seen as, if not desirable in every case, at least worthy of respect.
Everybody agrees the government should establish weather forecasting services and emergency response services, as well as a system of patent registration and a court system.
Everybody agrees whatever tasks the government carries out, they should be done as efficiently and economically as possible.
Should the government take upon itself the task of making people's lives better? I answer that with a qualfied yes. Surely people's lives are better if there is a local police force and a local fire department to call in emergencies. Their lives are better if their savings are not eroded through inflation. They are better off if no foreign invader takes over and destroys much of the wealth of the nation as well as killing many of the citizens.
But in many cases I do think that trying to make life fairer is a fool's errand that government would be well advised to reject. I totally agree with eliminating Jim Crow laws was a legitiamate governmental action, since government in the first place created those laws.
As long as there are public schools (in my perfect libertarian world, all schools would be private. . . but that's a utopian thought.), those schools should be as effective as possible. But if trying to make things fair in education entails limiting the number of Asian students who are well prepared so that African American students who are not so well prepared can obtain admission to public colleges, well, I think that is counterproductive.
Collectivists, which refers to people who (among other things) trust the government more than they do private citizens, seem never to learn the law of unintended negative consequences. (Funny, isn't it, how seldom unintended consequences are beneficial?)
To sum it up, I will restate my belief that government is absolutely necessary. But I also believe that it is a huge mistake to task government to do things that it really can't do very well, things that should be left to private citizens and groups of citizens. Look, government is manned by humans. Fallible humans. The difference between government fallibility and private fallibility is that the former can impose its will though the police power at its disposal. Private fallibility does not have that power.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 1, 2014 6:33:30 GMT -8
Than you for the post, William. Not as accusatory as usual, I appreciate that. Police power is always an issue in government. We do not have a police state, howerver. As you point out government is people. Our government is formed so that the people are represented by elected officials at all levels of government. For government, as you put it, to impose it's will it must do so in a legal manner through it's representatives. Even after that the Courts may be brought in to the process. Finally we have elections that can change the representatives and policys.
For these reasons I do trust government, as I believe we can change it through the polls. We are not a police state. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I am aure you believe that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on May 1, 2014 9:55:25 GMT -8
Than you for the post, William. Not as accusatory as usual, I appreciate that. Police power is always an issue in government. We do not have a police state, howerver. As you point out government is people. Our government is formed so that the people are represented by elected officials at all levels of government. For government, as you put it, to impose it's will it must do so in a legal manner through it's representatives. Even after that the Courts may be brought in to the process. Finally we have elections that can change the representatives and policys. For these reasons I do trust government, as I believe we can change it through the polls. We are not a police state. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I am aure you believe that too. I agree with your analysis of government- spot on. But one doesn't need to look to far to see that we are a police state. I have much more contempt towards our police/DHS than I do any elected official. |
|
