Comments on: Rigging the Economy in the Name of ‘Fairness’ http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/ Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:01:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mr. Independant http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-425010 Mr. Independant Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:06:11 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-425010 David S, Your post is half right. Yes organized labor is the best answer to ensuring the dual growth of both an economy and more importantly, the workforce. Unions can ensure that workers earn more money, have better health care, enjoy job security, and are protected against abusive practices by management. Most importantly, unions provide to their members the important benefit of representation in a similar way that legislatures provide representation to voters in a democracy. However taxation (although a necessary evil) does not in of itself improve an economy. Yes taxes can be used to build and maintain important institutions but every tax dollar collected is a dollar that can’t be used to hire an employee. Unions can help build an economy for the benefit of all workers but we have to careful not to ruin that economy with crippling taxes. David S,
Your post is half right. Yes organized labor is the best answer to ensuring the dual growth of both an economy and more importantly, the workforce. Unions can ensure that workers earn more money, have better health care, enjoy job security, and are protected against abusive practices by management. Most importantly, unions provide to their members the important benefit of representation in a similar way that legislatures provide representation to voters in a democracy.
However taxation (although a necessary evil) does not in of itself improve an economy. Yes taxes can be used to build and maintain important institutions but every tax dollar collected is a dollar that can’t be used to hire an employee.
Unions can help build an economy for the benefit of all workers but we have to careful not to ruin that economy with crippling taxes.

]]> By: Cybergeezer http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-422392 Cybergeezer Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:03:17 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-422392 <b>Obama's plan for forced welfare:</b> http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/16/morning-bell-obamacare-puts-you-on-welfare/ Obama’s plan for forced welfare:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/16/morning-bell-obamacare-puts-you-on-welfare/

]]> By: Chuck http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-422303 Chuck Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:31:05 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-422303 Myth buster: what if YOU'RE the dead weight? Myth buster: what if YOU’RE the dead weight?

]]> By: John Work http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-422238 John Work Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:18:42 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-422238 Excellent article, Oleg. I've enjoyed reading all your very informative and well reasoned articles. Please keep them coming. Thanks. Excellent article, Oleg. I’ve enjoyed reading all your very informative and well reasoned articles. Please keep them coming. Thanks.

]]> By: pelaut http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-422203 pelaut Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:48:33 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-422203 George S: "the republicans aren’t completely timid the republicans aren’t completely timid the republicans aren’t completely timid" You're mad. The "Republicans" ARE completely timid. To the point of treachery. George S:
“the republicans aren’t completely timid the republicans aren’t completely timid the republicans aren’t completely timid”

You’re mad.

The “Republicans” ARE completely timid. To the point of treachery.

]]> By: myth buster http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-421952 myth buster Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:13:09 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-421952 The act of avoiding inbreeding in no way invalidates what I said. You still increase the survival of your own genes by assisting in the survival and reproductive success of your siblings and cousins because they share some of your genes. Therefore, it is very much in the best interest of siblings to look out for each other, provided the sibling in question isn't completely dead weight. The act of avoiding inbreeding in no way invalidates what I said. You still increase the survival of your own genes by assisting in the survival and reproductive success of your siblings and cousins because they share some of your genes. Therefore, it is very much in the best interest of siblings to look out for each other, provided the sibling in question isn’t completely dead weight.

]]> By: ETAB http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-421448 ETAB Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:08:21 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-421448 #27Chuck - exactly. The concept of equality of outcomes is disastrous outside of a H&G society. Notice that such a band can only support about 30 people, both economically and organizationally. Any larger and the requirement for sharing dissolves as the band starts to split on its own into 'favorite' people. Furhermore, the reduction of individual enterprise in such a society mean that HG peoples have no capacity to adapt; they simply have to migrate. Large populations, whose sustenance requires long weeks and months of work (seeding, harvesting, animal husbandry)means that work must be rewarded with the results of that work. They must also promote individual enterprise, hard work, and adaptive solutions to new environmental pressures. The people must be settled rather than migratory. This brings in the concept of ownership of the land area or of the produce harvested. The attempt by socialists to transform a large population to an 'equality of outcome' HG mode is, as you say, disastrous. #27Chuck – exactly. The concept of equality of outcomes is disastrous outside of a H&G society. Notice that such a band can only support about 30 people, both economically and organizationally. Any larger and the requirement for sharing dissolves as the band starts to split on its own into ‘favorite’ people. Furhermore, the reduction of individual enterprise in such a society mean that HG peoples have no capacity to adapt; they simply have to migrate.

Large populations, whose sustenance requires long weeks and months of work (seeding, harvesting, animal husbandry)means that work must be rewarded with the results of that work. They must also promote individual enterprise, hard work, and adaptive solutions to new environmental pressures. The people must be settled rather than migratory. This brings in the concept of ownership of the land area or of the produce harvested.

The attempt by socialists to transform a large population to an ‘equality of outcome’ HG mode is, as you say, disastrous.

]]> By: Chuck http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-421399 Chuck Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:29:32 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-421399 #17 Ric: "If you examine what the Leftoids define as “fair”, and put that up against the survival requirements for a hunter-gatherer-scavenger band, they match almost perfectly. At the top of that list is a picture of resources that “just happen” — no human agency can affect whether they are there or not, or what quantity; they can only be found." True - but I would add that what the Leftoids fail or refuse to understand is that many important resources to the band aren't just "found"; they are created by those looking to improve the lot of themselves (and possibly the band) from the resources that are found, i.e. the net woven to catch more fish than the single fishing pole, so that mother & more children can be fed and more time can be spent constructing another net that can then be traded for something else that is useful (e.g. a water container, a spear, clothes, shoes, a roof, cooking utensils, etc.). It's simple supply & demand economics. When the individual competitive nature of humans is inserted, however, which #20 ETAB correctly says must be repressed in a HG society, then true fairness (or equity per Ric) emerges, i.e. those who work harder & smarter are rewarded. But the Leftoids want none of that; to them, competition must be repressed b/c no individual/family/tribe/clan should be allowed to "do better" than any other, which, in turn, causes misery and death. We must have equality of outcomes, according to the Leftoids; children must receive equal grades, so their "self-esteem" won't be damaged. Never mind that the little darlings spent most of their time watching the idiot box or playing useless video games rather than studying and learning, all with the approval, and possibly encouragement, of the parents. Never mind that they don't acquire the skills necessary to actually secure employment, support their families and contribute to society. The socialistic redistributive policies of the Obama administration are doing just that - which will inevitably lead to widespread misery & ultimately, a quicker death, first of the individual, and then society. #17 Ric:
“If you examine what the Leftoids define as “fair”, and put that up against the survival requirements for a hunter-gatherer-scavenger band, they match almost perfectly. At the top of that list is a picture of resources that “just happen” — no human agency can affect whether they are there or not, or what quantity; they can only be found.”

True – but I would add that what the Leftoids fail or refuse to understand is that many important resources to the band aren’t just “found”; they are created by those looking to improve the lot of themselves (and possibly the band) from the resources that are found, i.e. the net woven to catch more fish than the single fishing pole, so that mother & more children can be fed and more time can be spent constructing another net that can then be traded for something else that is useful (e.g. a water container, a spear, clothes, shoes, a roof, cooking utensils, etc.). It’s simple supply & demand economics. When the individual competitive nature of humans is inserted, however, which #20 ETAB correctly says must be repressed in a HG society, then true fairness (or equity per Ric) emerges, i.e. those who work harder & smarter are rewarded. But the Leftoids want none of that; to them, competition must be repressed b/c no individual/family/tribe/clan should be allowed to “do better” than any other, which, in turn, causes misery and death. We must have equality of outcomes, according to the Leftoids; children must receive equal grades, so their “self-esteem” won’t be damaged. Never mind that the little darlings spent most of their time watching the idiot box or playing useless video games rather than studying and learning, all with the approval, and possibly encouragement, of the parents. Never mind that they don’t acquire the skills necessary to actually secure employment, support their families and contribute to society. The socialistic redistributive policies of the Obama administration are doing just that – which will inevitably lead to widespread misery & ultimately, a quicker death, first of the individual, and then society.

]]> By: Mr. Independant http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-421253 Mr. Independant Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:46:57 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-421253 Oleg Atbashian, Your article is flawed due to what I perceive as your confusion of management and regulation. I agree with you that government cannot and should not run business. History has shown us that it doesn’t work (China, India, & USSR). However history has also shown us that government must regulate business. Two recent examples are Bank of America and Citigroup. In the case of Bank of America (a bank that did not get involved in the sub-prime market, counted half of all US adults as customers, and was in no financial trouble) was forced by the US government to purchase Merrill Lynch. Which caused the bank to almost go bankrupt and required 10’s of billions of dollars from the US tax payers. That’s what happens when the government attempts to manage a business. Now in the case of Citigroup the government failed to prevent that bank from leveraging it’s assets at such unsafe levels. That’s what happens when our government fails to regulate a business. There is a difference. I appreciate that you grew up under the yoke of communism and as such are very distrustful of government. But if you really think that an absence of government regulation will be good for the economy and the workforce, then why hasn’t it worked in Mexico? Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world, is one of the most economically libertarian countries in the world, and yet over 50% of it’s citizens live in poverty. There is a balance that can and must be met. Government can’t manage business but it must regulate it. Oleg Atbashian,
Your article is flawed due to what I perceive as your confusion of management and regulation. I agree with you that government cannot and should not run business. History has shown us that it doesn’t work (China, India, & USSR). However history has also shown us that government must regulate business. Two recent examples are Bank of America and Citigroup. In the case of Bank of America (a bank that did not get involved in the sub-prime market, counted half of all US adults as customers, and was in no financial trouble) was forced by the US government to purchase Merrill Lynch. Which caused the bank to almost go bankrupt and required 10’s of billions of dollars from the US tax payers. That’s what happens when the government attempts to manage a business. Now in the case of Citigroup the government failed to prevent that bank from leveraging it’s assets at such unsafe levels. That’s what happens when our government fails to regulate a business. There is a difference. I appreciate that you grew up under the yoke of communism and as such are very distrustful of government. But if you really think that an absence of government regulation will be good for the economy and the workforce, then why hasn’t it worked in Mexico? Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world, is one of the most economically libertarian countries in the world, and yet over 50% of it’s citizens live in poverty. There is a balance that can and must be met. Government can’t manage business but it must regulate it.

]]> By: Mr. Indpendant http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-economy-in-the-name-of-fairness/#comment-421244 Mr. Indpendant Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:20:21 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=69316#comment-421244 Oleg Atbashian, Your article is flawed due to what I perceive as your confusion of management and regulation. I agree with you that government cannot and should not run business. History has shown us that it doesn’t work (China, India, & USSR). However history has also shown us that government must regulate business. Two recent examples are Bank of America and Citigroup. In the case of Bank of America (a bank that did not get involved in the sub-prime market, counted half of all US adults as customers, and was in no financial trouble) was forced by the US government to purchase Merrill Lynch. Which caused the bank to almost go bankrupt and required 10’s of billions of dollars from the US tax payers. That’s what happens when the government attempts to manage a business. Now in the case of Citigroup the government failed to prevent that bank from leveraging it’s assets at such unsafe levels. That’s what happens when our government fails to regulate a business. There is a difference. I appreciate that you grew up under the yoke of communism and as such are very distrustful of government. But if you really think that an absence of government regulation will be good for the economy and the workforce, then why hasn’t it worked in Mexico? Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world, is one of the most economically libertarian countries in the world, and yet over 50% of it’s citizens live in poverty. There is a balance that can and must be met. Government can’t manage business but it must regulate it Oleg Atbashian,
Your article is flawed due to what I perceive as your confusion of management and regulation. I agree with you that government cannot and should not run business. History has shown us that it doesn’t work (China, India, & USSR). However history has also shown us that government must regulate business. Two recent examples are Bank of America and Citigroup. In the case of Bank of America (a bank that did not get involved in the sub-prime market, counted half of all US adults as customers, and was in no financial trouble) was forced by the US government to purchase Merrill Lynch. Which caused the bank to almost go bankrupt and required 10’s of billions of dollars from the US tax payers. That’s what happens when the government attempts to manage a business. Now in the case of Citigroup the government failed to prevent that bank from leveraging it’s assets at such unsafe levels. That’s what happens when our government fails to regulate a business. There is a difference. I appreciate that you grew up under the yoke of communism and as such are very distrustful of government. But if you really think that an absence of government regulation will be good for the economy and the workforce, then why hasn’t it worked in Mexico? Mexico has the 11th largest economy in the world, is one of the most economically libertarian countries in the world, and yet over 50% of it’s citizens live in poverty. There is a balance that can and must be met. Government can’t manage business but it must regulate it

]]>