The Fallacy of ‘Economic Equality’
On the surface, the idea of economic equality may seem like an honorable moral goal, which explains its resilience and power over people. This is why it continues repeatedly and with impunity to bring one economic and social disaster after another anywhere it’s tried. On the flip side, opponents of economic equality are branded as greedy, selfish, and immoral — which is why few politicians dare oppose this absurdity.
The current political debates mostly end up in the following compromise: capitalism may be more economically efficient, but it’s still morally inferior to economic equality that benefits most people. Such a view has two big problems.
It is, in fact, efficiency that benefits most people by raising living standards, reducing the number of workers involved in low-paying and tedious manual work, increasing the number of well-paid intellectual jobs, continually improving everyone’s quality of life, and giving the poor access to things that only the rich could enjoy only a short while ago. Therefore, efficiency is moral — and, as such, it renders the above formula invalid.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that economic equality is also efficient, so that we could leave this part out and compare what’s left. The resulting picture still doesn’t stand moral scrutiny.
Since economic equality cannot be attained by bringing everyone up to the level of the achievers, the achievers will have to be brought down to the level of mediocrity, with most of their earnings and property taken by the government. Even the most “progressive” achievers wouldn’t submit to this voluntarily (see Hollywood tax returns), so it has to be a forced measure. To do this on a national scale, the state must assume supremacy over private citizens and limit certain freedoms. What’s more, forced extraction and redistribution corrupts the government by giving it arbitrary powers to determine various people’s needs, for which there can be no objective standards. Most bureaucrats are not paragons of honesty, and even if they were, in due course idealists will become replaced by eager crooks seeking to distribute entitlements in exchange for kickbacks. And finally, such a system corrupts the very people it intends to help, by demeaning the individual productive effort and encouraging a destructive collective scuffle for unearned privileges among pressure groups driven by greed and selfishness.
These are the reasons why all attempts at forced economic equality have always resulted in corruption, poverty, oppression, and moral degradation. What honorable and moral idea would bring such results? What honorable and moral idea would require a blind, endless sacrifice of people’s work, careers, ambitions, property, and lives, to an unattainable utopian goal that, at a closer look, isn’t even a virtue? The only way economic equality can benefit most people is by gratifying their class envy.
Some people understandably fear the uncertainty of outcome of their daily efforts, seeing it as a dangerous void separating them from a safe and comfortable future. A rational reaction to this would be to remind oneself that, ever since people lived in caves, nature has never offered us certainty, and that risk-taking, combined with intelligence and creativity, has built modern civilization — which may be imperfect, yet it’s as good as it gets historically in terms of comfort and safety for those participating in it.
An irrational reaction would be to panic, take offense, become impatient with the world, and join a self-righteous political cult that promises a guaranteed certainty of results on the other side, just as soon as they fill the void in front of them with other people’s property and the dead bodies of those who dare stand in the way of their brazen march toward the bright future.
As good a summary as I’ve seen. It might even wake up a few trolls, but probably not the ones who post here.
Just read Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, von Mises, Rand, Jefferson.
Then go Galt.
Excellent outline. As noted, you cannot create an equal homogeneity of a diverse Set without removing the diversity. This means reducing that Set to the LCD, the lowest common denominator.
This then removes any and all capacities for progress, because it removes ‘difference’ and thus, the deviation from the norm, which is the bedroot of progress and adaptation.
It is a fact that societies or communities that repress individualism and risk-taking differences are unable to adapt and change.
Then, all living beings require an asymmetry of resources. This refers to the fact that the living matter must store in itself, both in its individuals and as a collective, the ‘matter’ that enables it to continue beyond the present into the future. Think of this capacity for future continuity as ‘wealth’.
So, living matter exists in different time phases. The ‘equality movement’ ignores this and focuses only on the current time frame, and insists that in this period, we must all have the same results of wealth.
Biologically, an example is DNA, a ‘piece’ of matter that contains a lot more information and future-oriented capacities than the current cells of the person.
Socially, this asymmetry is exemplified by the authority of the laws and customs of the group which enable it to perpetuate itself, as itself.
Economically, this asymmetry requires that wealth be, not fully distributed to all right now, but collected and stored by some. This wealth is collected and stored in material ‘things’ that have different time frames.
So, there’s he manufacturing industry which requires a lot of wealth to maintain..for longer than any single worker.
There are new factories and new products that require a lot of ‘wealth’ input to produce more goods.
Since the wealth cannot be fully spread around in current time, because a rather large amount must be removed from current circulation and transformed into ‘stored wealth’..this means that you’ll have an asymmetrical population. Some will have a lot of wealth, which they store in a future-oriented mode..they invest in a new technology design. Some will have less wealth which they invest in their children’s future education. And some will have no wealth and simply live in current rather than also future-oriented time.
The entire population can’t exist in any one type; wealth or the ability-to-live-in-the future has to be stored in a diversity of ways; that protects the future-oriented ability.
A robust society is one where the means to ensure continuity into the future is stored in the population (rather than in the gods or fate)..and in a diverse spread..that is, by a variety of differences in ‘wealth storage types’.
Spreading the wealth, economic equality, socialism in america. All fantasy and hogwash. A quick look around will tell you very quickly…its “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Some folks just like to cry wolf every time we want to help the poor or raise the minimum wage a few pennies. But do not let them fool you…they are full of beans. Although I do not blame their almost..rabid paranoia..if I owned all the marbles I would probably end up not wanting anyone else to have any either……. good luck !
I pay taxes so Democrats can buy votes.
Poor Citizen, you just proposed a non-sequiter. The fact that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” tells you NOTHING about WHY this is happening. If the poor are getting poorer because of bad choices (like having children out of wedlock), no amount of “help” will avail them. You could give them all the wealth in the world and they’d squander it within a few years. Why do so many lottery winners wind up bankrupt a few years later? You have no sense of unintended consequences; your idealistic thinking backfires and when you don’t understand what went wrong the first time you demand that we do more of what we did.
It ought never be forgotten that underlying all the verbiage of equality and redistribution is more than just envy, it’s aggression tinged considerably with barely suppressed and aimless hate. Which,btw, is why the word is always on their lips, not realizing they’re showing their own.
“The current political debates mostly end up in the following compromise: capitalism may be more economically efficient, but it’s still morally inferior to economic equality that benefits most people.”
Well, that’s one way to frame the debate – the straw-man way.
5. Ruebacca: “I pay taxes so Democrats can buy votes.”
Really, Rueb? I pay taxes so we can finally wind down Bush’s wars. But then, we all have our causes.
My brother-in-law is a Norwegian. He told me of their high taxes. In some cases greater than 100%. No joke. The young Norwegians with potential are quietly leaving. Good for them.
Redistribution and the laundromat.
Each month about 45% of the residents of the city in which I reside receive one or more checks. These checks sometimes last the month, but more often the funds only last a few weeks. Adding more money to the checks hasn’t changed much about this situation. More money does little for the person who can’t read the instructions on the dryer to clean the lint screen and who then spends $7.00 to dry a load of clothes instead of $1.75. More money doesn’t teach the difference between the cheapest price and the cheapest price based on unit cost. More basic education, on the other hand, does a great deal to improve the lives of people. My grandmother left school in the 5th grade, and yet her basic reading and math skills were such that she was able to teach herself wiring and all sorts of skills that she used to improve her life and that of our family.
If you are determined to institute social equality, the first obstacle on your path will be property rights. If you don’t abolish property rights, your project will not even get started.
But property rights are necessary to wealth creation: With property rights, any able individual can become the custodian of some resource, not necessarily a big resource initially, and will then have a rational incentive to make the best of it, knowing that the fruits of his or her efforts are protected by the main rule of the game: property rights! Nothing can motivate people as much as the prospect of retribution of effort.
America is exhibit A of what property rights and individual freedom can accomplish. There is not any society more productive, more prosperous and more attractive to immigrants from all angles of the planet.
Equalizing society is like “restructuring” a magestic cathedral into a heap of stones. It’s not hard to do. An earthquake can do it free of charge, and you did not even need to lift a finger! After the crumbling, the highest stones on the top of the pile are not as high as they were before the destruction. Almost equal stone elevation: Some accomplishment!
The heap of stones will not inspire you as much as the cathedral did, but you will have the consolation that the earthquake and the laws of gravity were all on your side. It’s nice to have powerful friends, isn’t it?
We have ‘poor people’ with credit debt, obesity, cell-phones, more than one television, Internet access/computers, homes they couldn’t afford and shouldn’t have gotten that have gone or are going into foreclosure and don’t forget cash for clunkers ‘new cars’.
All in the name of ‘helping’…and look what it got us?
When will people learn?
Ready for more welfare? Here’s Obama’s plan for you:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/16/morning-bell-obamacare-puts-you-on-welfare/
Well done, well done indeed.
8. biblio44:
I pay taxes …….
Well guys, I knew a democrat who paid his taxes existed. Looks like we finally have found him. Better alert Obama … maybe bib’s should be one of his cabinet picks… lord knows obama has not been able to find many such democrats as he.
professor guvinoff – exactly. Property rights are basic to a productive, adaptive, and progressive society.
That’s because property exists in three time phases: past, present and future. H&G (hunting and gathering) economies operate, economically, only in present time. They rely on the gods to provide for their future economic needs.
Larger populations must have property rights, because you must store the ability to live in the future, from your work in the past and present. You worked in the fields for months; you are now harvesting the results (past/present). And you must store some of this harvest (seeds, animals) rather than consume it, to enable you to live in the future.
Only the free individual can do this. When govt hands out goods (eg money or flour and rice), via redistribution, it is consumed immediately, because the recipient has no property to produce his own future needs.
this is a false argument, the real argument is that there are basic things that are needed for a functioning society, and we use the government to provide and facilitate these things. Some conservatives should like to make this an option, and end all services and basic necessities (of which i count access to health care as a primary) People who have more money pay in more taxes than those without, this is how a healthy functioning society works, and the way this country has worked for years including its boom years 1945-1973.
I’m always at a loss when the socialist rhetoric and “slide into communism” get brought up by you guys. What kind of power do you think is wielded by the left? America is a mixed capitalist country with some powerful stakeholders who make billions of dollars in the status quo.
Did anyone notice that when Obama went to Wall Street none of the power players from investment banks bothered to even show up? Haven’t you noticed that the current health care legislation bent over backwards to appease corporate interests?
I’m a great believer in innovation too, but it seems for all too long the only thing that’s getting innovated is a way to separate the average American from his paycheck. They’ve worked hard long hours at insurance companies to figure out who to not give insurance and how long they can wrongfully deny a claim so they can keep as much money as possible. Banks toil day and night to figure out how to charge you more for the slightest infractions.
Capitalism the way you describe it is some lofty ivory tower that magically sorts out all our problems. Yeah, but it also takes the screws to you and tries to suck every dollar it can.
arthur, your argument is incomplete. You say that we need ‘basic things for a functioning society’ but neglect to state what these ‘basic things’ are apart from health care.
You then declare that government should provide these ‘basic things’. Why?
Since you refer only to health care, why should this be the domain of the government? The Constitution, Article 10, says no such thing.
But, more to the point, why should govt get involved? Why can’t a city have some people as doctors, and the community agrees to support a hospital, etc..Why can’t it be a community agenda?
Lefty, as you know, the left rejects individualism, freedom of enterprise, private property and instead, inserts regulations that take money from the hardest workers and gives it to those who don’t work. Capitalism isn’t an ivory tower, and unlike socialism and communism, it refuses to operate within a utopia.
It is simple; it rewards those who work hard and who produce marketable products that people want and does not reward those who do neither. That’s reality. It includes the concept of charity towards those who are unable to participate. But, it does not reward those who refuse to bear responsibility for the well-being of the society.
And a socialist/communist system reduces everyone to passive recipients of govt handouts. That ends innovation.
“Wouldn’t it be fair if, in the name of equality, we scar the beautiful, cripple the athletes, lobotomize the scientists, blind the artists, and sever the hands of the musicians? Why not?”
As a matter of fact, there is a novel that posits exactly this state of affairs – “Facial Justice”, by L.P. Hartley. In other words, what happens when Equality of Result is enshrined above Equality of Opportunity.
Another example is in “Atlas Shrugged”, when the tramp relates to Dagny Taggart the story of what happened at Twentieth Century Motors, when new owners put into practice the precept “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Lefty,
My husband and I certainly would love to keep more of our hard earned money. We are barely making ends meet with our business and survival is tough all over for everyone.
Flat tax and shrink the government and only give Welfare as a temporary relief to people who are willing to work and not LIVE for generations on it. There are people who should be embarrassed to be on Welfare and not bragging about what the gub’ [you and I] is going to give them.
Not enough people are working or even can find work to carry the tax debt that is going to burden the future of our children and their children ad infinitum.
Our dollar is being burned.
The ‘stimulus’ was a blatant LIE.
We are spiraling DOWNward.
The poor will truly become poor and the middle class will become the ‘new’ poor.
Growing the government is the worst answer on earth and giving money to people who don’t even pay taxes isn’t exactly going to help grow the economy or create ‘jobs’.
Our country is running out of gas, the golden goose is running out of eggs.
ETAB – That’s a very slanted view of the left you’ve got there. As for taking money from the hardest workers, who are these hardest workers? Do you refer to Investment Bankers, Hedge Fund Advisors or corporate board members?
On the other hand the left is responsible for establishing a forty hour week, ending child labor, indentured servitude and slavery. The left that pushed for safe working conditions in mines and factories and to look after those who are injured on the job. I feel no need to apologize for aligning myself with those who inconvenience the wheels of Capitalism. It’s simply doing what is right for Americans.
There is a great distance between wanting my friends, family and countrymen to not go bankrupt when faced with a catastrophic illness and establishing a welfare state. Obama might have won this time, but we lost twice to Bush even if it was close. I’m not getting the number of people who are going to “turn you in”. What secret left wing army is in training to make this happen? I don’t know if you noticed but you’ve got most of the muscle and we’ve got a bunch of touchy feely hippies. Who ya think’s gonna win that one?
Lefty, it was the religious right that ended slavery. I don’t want people to go bankrupt when faced with catastrophic illnesses either, but I would prefer a million people go bankrupt than a single person be denied access to care on the basis of age/disability/social class.
Lefty – Who are the hardest workers? The key attribute is the term ‘hardest’ and this value can be applied to many people, including farmers who work long hard hours, physicians, scientists and yes, investment bankers and hedge fund advisors..anyone who works hard, physically and intellectually.
No, the left is not responsible for the 40 hour week, ending child labor, indentured servitude and slavery. Safe working conditions etc.
People of all political views are responsible for these actions. There is no way that you can claim that the majority of people on the ‘right’ support slavery, child labor, unsafe working conditions, etc. That is, to say the least, an untenable claim on your part.
As I’m sure you know, child labor exists in large numbers, even today, and the US govt, with politicians of all perspectives, has been active in trying to stop this. Same with slavery, unsafe working conditions, etc.
Nor can you claim, as you seem to be doing, that capitalism somehow enables or encourages unsafe working, slavery, child labor ,etc. That’s as invalid as your assertion about the left’s accomplishments.
The fact that YOU feel that capitalism is wrong, is your opinion. I don’t think that you can claim any basic truth; i.e., that being against is ‘is doing what is right or Americans’. Speak for yourself.
I don’t know what you are talking about with your reference to ‘turn you in’.
With regard to Bush, he wasn’t setting up a socialist statist system, as is Obama, and his focus was on foreign affairs, and specifically, terrorism.
I strongly supported his actions in that area – just as I am shocked at how Obama is enabling Russia to expand its imperialist agenda, enabling Iran to do the same and also, get a nuclear weapon, and enabling Venezuala to expand its imperialist agenda
Oleg,
Bravo! Keep it coming. Won’t have any effect on the Leftist trolls, as a number of comments here demonstrate, but in a world gone mad, it’s great to read your clear and rational ideas.
Lefty..
It is amazing how left mind can hold on to things, reality not withstanding.
let’s just grub few of the things you said:
“Do you refer to Investment Bankers, Hedge Fund Advisors or corporate board members”
Have you ever seen the countless of hours that those people, you so glibly dismiss, work? Not only now while they hold the position but also in order to GET to that position. Hedge managers for instance, routinely work 16 hours + a day in an extremely stressful environment, one that your holy “worker” would never be able to survive in, and would cry foul at every step.
Only people who have a chance to work 40 hours, tend to be those who complain how others do not work. I don’t know, for instance last time I worked less then 50 hours in a week to get what I have.
In addition to that 40 hour a week, was institute by Henry Ford, not by unions (who are nothing but parasites).
Slavery was abolished by the Republican party (that’s why it came into effect), Civil right laws were also pushed by the same party. It was done in the name of what RIGHT believes, that is individual freedom. If it was for the liberal party we would still have Eugenics, Slavery, and other “nice” things that were so near and dear to the liberal view point.
You don’t have to look far to see the prove of that, Soviet Union, Germany under Hitler, China, Vietnam, Cuba all examples of the “freedom” that left brings. Not to mention, all the political correctness which is nothing but censorship.
I know there is nothing that can be said to convince you, but maybe you at least could look at some of the facts.
chrobry – many thanks for the specifics.
Yes, the people who earn the most do earn it by their hard work. Hedge Fund managers put in 16+ hours a day, work weekends and holidays, and certainly aren’t able to live the easy life of 40 and less hours per week. And as you say, these types of jobs are extremely stressful, with a great deal of responsibility. Nothing like the pencil pusher bureaucrat in Leftist Style ‘work’.
And yes, we can see the enslavement of the individual, the loss of freedom and human rights, in all those socialist nations.
Superb summary! A “must read” for all middle and high school kids.
But I fear it is too late . . .
“Since economic equality cannot be attained by bringing everyone up to the level of the achievers, the achievers will have to be brought down to the level of mediocrity, with most of their earnings and property taken by the government.”
Oleg, my dear comrade, we are already there.
Wealth distribution is no substitute for wealth creation.
Socialists may see themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to help the poor. But Robin Hood could only steal wealth, not create it. Eventually, there will be no wealth to take, as rich will either have ceased to work, hidden their assets, or moved away. And after the government and the poor have consumed what they took, where will they get more? As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Free shoes sound great to those with no shoes at all. But in Socialism, we must understand that that these come at the expense of tearing down the shoe factory, an unsustainable economic model that will eventually leave everybody shoeless again. The shoeless must be helped. But the secret to lifting up the poor is not finding new means of income redistribution, it’s finding new means of income generation: jobs, small and large businesses, etc. That’s something socialism can’t create.
“Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.” – Calvin Coolidge
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” — Winston Churchill
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” ~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005
ETAB – I don’t hate Capitalism. I think that without restraints and guidance it can and will lead to exploitation, unfair business practices and outright fraud.
As for my assertion that leftists were responsible for the 40 hour week, look up “eight hour day” on wikipedia. (you’ll find chordry’s claim that Henry Ford invented it is refuted quite soundly)
The fact is, you don’t seem to have an understanding of the history of Trade Unions in America. The drive to safer workplaces and fair wages wasn’t simply agreed upon by citizens. It was a violent struggle between labor organizers and big business.
Oh, and on the Investment Banker thing. I’ve spent more time on a trading floor than I think either of you two will ever see, and I’ve worked long hours there. Like many things though, there are those who work hard, and those who fall into these things. There are analysts who do their own work and plenty who just follow the herd. But I often reflect, that for the millions that some of them were paid, not one saved a life, or advanced our knowledge of the universe, or built anything great for mankind. They just pushed around pieces of paper.
I think we all envy the very rich, but Wall Street has been selling a bunch of snake oil and the gall that these people have, to not even be grateful to the American people for bailing them out. It’s just disgusting.
Lefty
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford” Look it up. I also didn’t mention 8 hour work week, I mentioned 40 hour week.
Trade unions are, and were nothing but parasites to the business. Every industry that they are a part of collapses or at the very least becomes very unhealthy. They also were great at PR, taking other people accomplishments and claim for their own. Look up our education, automotive, steel, shipbuilding, railroad, etc.. Unions are the exactly what is wrong with socialism. To cater to LCD without regard to those that allowed them to be employed. Ultimately it is people like HP, Ford, Sears and others that were important and not those that work for them. Those were an expense that had to be paid, but not creators.
I worked for the union for number of years, I know just how bad it is. Accomplishments is frown upon, hard work is frown upon, because it makes others look “bad”. All in the name of “equality”.
First and foremost I don’t envy the very rich. I want to BE very rich, I may never get there, but I want an opportunity to try. I want nothing from them, I do not want to steal their money at all. Which is all that liberals do, steal money and than give to others who don’t deserve it. Sooner or later money disappears.
Secondly, “or built anything great for mankind” are you kidding? US has done more to bring up people out of poverty, and increase standard of living then anybody else EVER. Those who accomplished this were those who created wealth. Bankers, investors and others of the ilk were the ones who allowed this. Good portion of successful companies were build by someone who needed money to get started, and it is bankers that allowed this. Creation of wealth is single most important activity that humans learned to do. Individual banker maybe a very bad human being, but their profession is essential. Look to what happened to all the societies that kicked out the so called “leeches” i.e. their bankers.
While, let’s say fireman, may save a life or two banker may allow a business to grow that will employ thousands, and allow their families and their children to flourish. Saving life maybe be more glamors but creation of wealth is simply more important to society as a whole.
Capitalism maybe cold, impersonal sometimes cruel, but it works. It is through it that we live now to our 70s instead of our 30s like we did when we were “noble savages”. Socialism never created wealth, it doesn’t know how, it only steals it.
#30 Lefty – You worked on a trading floor, but did not respect your own craft? Nor, apparently, did you understand it.
Those Wall Street “paper-pushers” enable the wealth creation. They provide the incentive for large companies to do well. They have allowed 100+million to incest their money, rather than storing it in the mattress.
Are there abuses? You bet? I note that the ones who created the problem, who messed it all up, seemed to be each and every one an Ivy-league graduate. The Lefties control the Ivy-League schools.
The corporations show no thanks to the American people for bailing them out, because “the people” didn’t. Congress did… in direct opposition to those of us who were conservative and crying out to “Let them fail!” They show no appreciation, because it was simply a service they had bought and paid for via Congressional campaign coffer kickbacks. Both Dems and Pubs play this game to ensure their continued power. Only the Conservatives rebelled.
One more thing: in the old days, Wall Street used to support the Pubs. They switched in the last generation to the Dems, not because the Dems got to be more business friendly, but because they allowed out-and-out looting. This is all because the Left-controlled “elite” schools no longer share the foundational American morality system. Right and wrong no longer have a place, because God is just ignorant superstition in their hallowed halls. Our elites lack the “good angels upon their shoulders whispering in their ears”.
As I am feeling under the weather I will not be bothered to answer all points and as I am obviously engaging in troll-like behavior the longer I post I’ll cut this short.
Oleg’s article is about how wrong it is to want to help out your fellow man. That any attempts to better the lot of those at the bottom as well meaning as they are serves only to create a warped world in which the achievers of this world are shackled by the fetters of taxation and higher costs.
I say that Oleg might know a great deal about socialism in the Ukraine, but he doesn’t know about US history and the social agitators and critics and their contributions from the left. America will never stand for a command economy, but we don’t stand for Monopolies, Oligarchies and other abuses of Capitalism either. To equate any criticism of Capitalism with hoisting up a red flag in the name of Stalinism is absurd.
I see a country in crisis, a revolving door between private business and government regulation and policy that turns a blind eye to fraud on a massive scale. I see bankers driving companies into the ground and then demanding enormous sums of money for their “expertise”. I see health costs quadrupled in the past four years and steadily increasing with Medicare commitments exacting a greater percentage of our national budget.
The answers to these problems do not lie in sticking our heads in the sand eliminating any government oversight and repeating “the market will work everything out”. If government is letting companies abuse their trust, we need to kick government in the ass and get it to do it’s job. If corporations come begging for a handout because they’ve made a mess too big for them to clean up they shouldn’t be given “gilded food stamps”. When insurers decide they want to not insure sick people and play games to deny coverage to people who pay for their policies.
It is not going to turn our country into some socialist dictatorship to get corporations to stop behaving badly and end the all too cozy relationship between business and government. You don’t want government in your capitalist business, fine, I say get your corporate lobbyists out of my government. Fair enough?
Lefty,
“Oleg’s article is about how wrong it is to want to help out your fellow man.”
WOW. You really must be ill to have gotten THAT from this article!
Helping someone when they are down is not the same thing as KEEPING SOMEONE DOWN on the easy teat of the government. I’m ALL for helping the downtrodden, the children and the disabled. What I’m NOT for is helping to fatten the supposed ‘poor’ who live perpetually on the gov. teat as a ‘living’. BIG-HUGE difference.
Don’t you get it, hon?
Take zinc and vitamin C and get well soon.
You’re not a troll.
Spreading the wealth evenly isn’t just impossible; it’s immoral.
Unless its military contractors. Then spreading the wealth is just fine.
Lefty
I don’t take you for a troll. I just disagree with you. That is not one and the same. I must say that, unlike most internet posters, you are rare quantity that can disagree without flaming.
Anyway here is the major problem, government people are not some amazing all knowledgeable people that can predict consequences of their action. Quite the opposite actually, most politicians are only good at being politicians and know little or nothing about Economy. What they care about most is to get (re)elected and therefore only care about buzz words and doing things to get a vote. Like all of us, they only have their own self interest in mind. But unlike most of us, they have power. Power is one of the most dangerous of all forces, and it always corrupts. People in power actually believe that they somehow have the answers, and are better then other people.
Our current health care debacle is a wonderful example of this. Government ideas are completely wrong, socializing medicine will not fix the problem, especially considering that the problems exist largely because of Government in the first place. The main issues that we have are due to the over-regulation, trial lawyer, and lack of competition (and no, Government can not be competition since by default Government can not fail since they can run everything in a deficit). BTW some raise in healthcare prices is to be expected naturally, due to longer lives, and better medicine (which is expensive to develop).
I am not saying there shouldn’t be any regulations. Government needs to make sure that all “players” play by the same rules. For instance you can’t have price co-operation between businesses.
However most regulations are just barriers to others into entering industries, this in turn means that you have limited competition, and worst results.
What effects of regulations are, is never known when regulation is passed which is yet another problem with the Government. Obama isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is, what he proposes WILL have very bad and unindented consequences but he doesn’t have to worry about that. All he worries about is to make sure that he gets enough votes for him and his party to get re-elected.
Every human en devour is always limited by the basic truths of human existence.
A. We don’t see the future
B. We won’t work as hard for others as we do for ourselves, and for our self interests.
C. our knowledge is limited
Under the above constrains the only system that have a possibility of working is one that doesn’t require any of the above rules to be broken. Capitalism does that because it doesn’t require any special knowledge, people work for themselves, and work hard. Some succeed some fail, but either way that which is most wanted ends up on top. As long as we make sure that failure isn’t rewarded and that we don’t stop failure, we be OK. But as soon as we start trying to play “god” we will fail EVERY time.
However don’t look for the perfect system, that doesn’t exist.
Oleg,
You make some very interesting points. However, I think you’re only seeing half the problem. Yes the redistribution of wealth doesn’t work. But the absence of regulating that wealth is just as harmful. I agree with you that economic freedom is essential to the overall success of the US. Where I disagree with you is your implication (correct me is I’m misinterpreting your meaning) that economic freedom should only be privilege of the most “productive”. Business should be free to make as much money as it can (provided that they don’t break the law) but individuals and unions should also be free to make as much money as they can (again, provided they don’t break the law). Bear in mind the most progressive economic improvement in US history occurred during the height of union power.
I submit that you left something out in the following line. I added it in parenthesis. “Bear in mind the most progressive economic improvement in US history occurred during (and despite) the height of union power.”
The unions are one of several weights around the US economy’s neck.
tw