New at Reason
Jacob Sullum asks whether Hillary Clinton can finally make us all economic equals.
Comments to "New at Reason":
stuartl | January 23, 2008, 8:36am | #
"If you really believe you have to manage the economy," she said, "you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it."[shudders]
Has Richard Nixon been reincarnated?
Sje | January 23, 2008, 8:38am | #
"In 2006, for example, she endorsed a successful Commerce Department petition by Syracuse candle makers to impose a tariff of more than 100 percent on candles imported from China."WHAT? Next thing you know, Hillary will endorse a petition to extinguish the sun for its unfair competition with the candlemakers...
Oh, no.
That one was a joke.
(Do click the link. It's Bastiat's hilarious Candlestick Makers' Petition written in 1845.)
Julian Fondren | January 23, 2008, 8:49am | #
From Each According to His Ability...Hazlitt's Time Will Run Back:
Bolshekov looked troubled. He seemed to have no immediate answer. Peter pursued his advantage: "Let's say I'm an unusual person, a sort of worker genius, and that if I strained all my faculties I could actually turn out ten times as much production as the average worker. But I turn out only 50 per cent more than the average, and yet get praised for doing it--because I am above average. Why should I be so foolish as to show the authorities what I could really do ? I wouldn't live any better. I wouldn't get any more ration tickets than the next man. But once I had shown my capacity, my superiors would hold me up to its continuation--on the principle of 'from each according to his ability.' Therefore I find it wiser never to reveal my ability. Therefore nobody ever discovers that I am not producing according to my ability. Never having put it to a strain, in fact, I never even find out myself what my real ability is."
"This is heresy," said Bolshekov. "I shall turn over as a fulltime assignment to one of my subordinates the task of drafting an answer to it. The answer will be, of course, for my and your eyes alone."
"Why such secrecy?"
"We are never foolish enough to answer criticisms that no one has yet thought of. We merely prepare such answers ready for use."
"But what of the problem that's worrying you?" persisted Peter. "Maybe my criticism goes deeper than we started by supposing. Perhaps--perhaps the aim 'to each according to his needs' is the very thing that prevents us from ever getting 'from each according to his abilities?'"
"But everyone, No. 13, ought to work to the peak of his abilities! It's his duty to work to the peak of his abilities! Why shouldn't he? He's no longer being exploited by a master class!"
"But what he really fears under our present system, No. 2, is that he is being exploited by the slackness or malingering of his fellow workers. And perhaps his suspicions of others arise from his knowledge that he himself is secretly trying to exploit them by his own slackness or malingering--"
JC Denton | January 23, 2008, 8:50am | #
"If you really believe you have to manage the economy," she said, "you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it."Which is why I won't be voting for you, you meddlesome fuck.
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 8:52am | #
Hillary's brain is chock full of socialist drivel.Obama and Edwards are no better.
Sullum, are you and Balko having a contest to see who can write the article that will most make me want to emigrate?
silva | January 23, 2008, 9:17am | #
Economic InequalityI have been wondering for some time about where libertarians stand on economic inequality.
The last 20 years the US and other industrialized countries have seen significant increases
in economic inequality. If policy changes are not made inequality might well keep on increasing.
If we look around the world I believe a strong case can be made that higher inequality leads to less healthy societies.
I would also argue that large economic inequalities leads to bad use of resources. You have rich people with much more money then they can sensibly use and poor people with virtually no health care.
The economic circumstances that we find ourselves in are to a large extent a result of our own decisions, but they are also to a large extent a result of conditions beyond our own control.
I am not advocating full equality, but I believe a sensible balance can be struck between individual economic freedom and keeping economic inequality within reasonable limits.
I would love to hear libertarians view about economic inequality.
Do you not worry about it
no matter how extreme it becomes?
Do you have some libertarian solution to the problem?
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 23, 2008, 9:18am | #
I don't know, 8 years of George Bush + a Hillary Clinton Presidency= Enough to change the electorate to a libertarian philosophy?Very fine Jacob. I agree with every word. But you haven't told me anything I didn't know. Indeed she trumpets her desire to crown herself emperor of the economy loudly and often. Who could not know it. The depressing part is that her supporters not only know it, it is the basis of their support. The really depressing thing is, I think HRC is likely to be our next president. The hopeful thing is, if we give her a Republican congress, it could be the best of all possible worlds.
Bhamba | January 23, 2008, 9:27am | #
are the Democrats really going to nominate HRC? Really?They sure do know how to lose elections.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 9:30am | #
The last 20 years the US and other industrialized countries have seen significant increasesin economic inequality. If policy changes are not made inequality might well keep on increasing.
I don't think you should be setting your sights on inequality, but on standard of living. The US has a very respectably high standard of living, even from indexes that stem from a point of view that equality is the most important measurement.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 9:31am | #
"I would love to hear libertarians view about economic inequality.Do you not worry about it
no matter how extreme it becomes?
Do you have some libertarian solution to the problem?"
What is your solution to it Silva? Any attempt to make people more equal results in people being more equal, but at a lower level. Take more money from the wealthy, then there's less money to go into investments to create more jobs. Give people more handouts and you destroy their incentives. When the government creates jobs of which there is no demand for, money is wasted that could go into more productive jobs that create more wealth.
If person A is unwilling to put out the effort, does he deserve as much pay as B who does put out more effort? To pay A as much as B destroys the incentive of B and B produces less and less wealth is created. There is just no way to make people more equal without making us all poorer.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 9:34am | #
"I think HRC is likely to be our next president. The hopeful thing is, if we give her a Republican congress, it could be the best of all possible worlds."It is never the best of all possible worlds with HRC in the White House.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 9:37am | #
I would also argue that large economic inequalities leads to bad use of resources. You have rich people with much more money then they can sensibly use and poor people with virtually no health care.The economic circumstances that we find ourselves in are to a large extent a result of our own decisions, but they are also to a large extent a result of conditions beyond our own control.
Libertarianism would say that the government is not responsible for redistributing these funds. However, most of us would also say that the government is largely to blame for static social classes and protection of those with a lot of money through subsidies, protectionist policies, and various other gifts to those who lobby them. So to the extent that our personal circumstances are "beyond our own control," many of them are our own fault through supporting legislation that only benefits those we aim to neutralize.
Libertarians acknowledge that socialized health care can not function efficiently and effectively, because it creates a market for services that are artificially low in price (while in our current state, the government is causing health services to be artificially expensive)
swillfredo pareto | January 23, 2008, 9:37am | #
In this sense social justice is, if not a "mirage," as Hayek argued, at least in conflict with procedural justice.More to the point, expressions like Social Justice and Economic Justice are meaningless.
I have been wondering for some time about where libertarians stand on economic inequality.
The same place we stand on height inequality. We consider it none of our business what two individuals chose to do with their talents and opportunities.
If we look around the world I believe a strong case can be made that higher inequality leads to less healthy societies.
Please make the case.
Anon | January 23, 2008, 9:44am | #
Once again:If we wiped the slate clean, and gave everyone, EVERYONE, 2 millions dollars (total assets), in about 10 years, income distribution would look exactly like it does now.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 9:47am | #
as a continuation of my healthcare comment, subsidizing health care only leads to an increase in demand for health services, thus creating an environment where demand for services will always exceed the supply of them. This leads to a phenomenon called "rationing.”I am not advocating full equality, but I believe a sensible balance can be struck between individual economic freedom and keeping economic inequality within reasonable limits.
Silva -
this attitude is based on a giant assumption that such a thing is even possible. Granted, in its most minimal form it is less costly than it is to try to create total equality, but as Herman said, it results in less overall wealth and a lower overall standard of living.
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 9:47am | #
"If we look around the world I believe a strong case can be made that higher inequality leads to less healthy societies."Yeah those socialist government policies in France have led to a peacefull, happy paradise - except for all the riots, car burnings, labor strikes, etc.
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 9:50am | #
I'd like to hear some of these people who complain about income inequality to explain exactly by what reasoning they think that anyone is "entitled" to any particular ecomomic outcome in the first place.Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 9:55am | #
I would love to hear libertarians view about economic inequality.It's none of the state's business in 2 respects:
1. Principles of liberty preclude the state taking money/property from one person (at gun point, or what-have-you) and giving it to another.
2. From an economic standpoint -- "Get out of the way! You're only making things worse!"
Do you not worry about it
Yes. But that's a personal matter. I also give money to charities that help poor people get back on their feet, find abandoned animals good homes, feed the hungry, send kids to camps/on school trips that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to go on with their classmates, etc.
However, I, and other libertarians, want to respect your right to say "I don't think giving money to kids to go on school trips is a wise use of funds, and I would rather that money go to homeless shelters." We wouldn't want to force you to donate to a cause you didn't believe was doing good.
no matter how extreme it becomes?
There are varying viewpoints on this, but the general answer is no, and that it will correct itself.
Do you have some libertarian solution to the problem?
That's something that doesn't really exist, seeing as we almost always advocate repealing policy instead of creating it. So we think that more freedom = better for everyone. You get more freedom through fewer regulations, not more.
Libertarianism also recognizes a certain law, which is the law of unintended consequences. That is, every action has some unintended result, whether that result is obvious or not. This is especially true with vast complicated systems like the economy and the environment.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 10:11am | #
"I'd like to hear some of these people who complain about income inequality to explain exactly by what reasoning they think that anyone is "entitled" to any particular economic outcome in the first place."It's not equality in outcome, its equality of opportunity that is important. There is at least an argument that says people are entitled to start off equally even if we know they won't finish with equal $$. The Declaration of Independence says we're all created equal. We can't control the fact that somebody has a 150 IQ and another has 90 IQ. But we can do something about Person A being born with a $100 million trust fund he didn't have to earn while Person B is born to a crack whore. Personally, I suspect its more about politicking than making an actual difference.
On an aggregate level, most revolutionary movements in the 20th century were sparked by economic inequality, from big countries like Russia to small countries like El Salvador. Higher levels of economic inequality correlate to higher levels of political instability. Higher levels of political instability lead to lower investment.
I'm not saying the U.S. is in danger of becoming a banana republic anytime soon, but let's not just assume economic stratification doesn't matter.
claus | January 23, 2008, 10:14am | #
The free market economy and capitalism in US has certainly proved that it can't run things itself.Without political incentives there were no green economy or any green collar jobs. Without political regulations USA would loose in any competition with fx China, who has neither any costly environmental nor labor regulations. We can't compete Internationally with a country that pays a worker a dollar a day.
And just look at the stock and housing market - does greed seem to solve our financial and fiscal problems? Now, does this mean that we have to transform into a communistic or socialistic society? I don't think so.
But to believe that corporate America has more ethics and morals on the American people's behalf than our politicians is an expression of extreme naivety and/or stupidity. History shows differently.
James | January 23, 2008, 10:16am | #
"free to exchange goods and services on mutually agreeable terms"Really? Is that what sweatshop labor is? Unbelievable...I mean, it is hilarious to hear people complain that worker protections in out country and other countries is a terrible thing...Do you think it is only profit that makes Wal-Mart a huge union-busting operation, of course not! They make so much profit there is plenty to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they would just rather give that money to stockholders than to people in their own company who work for it.
What is even crazier is to hear so many of anti-gov't, anti-state people so thrilled for legislation that benefits huge corporations...So because we are afraid of corruption from one more or less democratic gov't we open up avenues for massive massive corruption by multitudes of dictatorial governments (corporations)...
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 10:20am | #
"It's not equality in outcome, its equality of opportunity that is important."I don't see the rationale for that either. The Declaration of Independence mention of equality was about political equality - not economic equality - either of outcome OR opportunity.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution ennumerates negative rights - not affirmative ones. Basically you have the right to be left alone by the government unless you have actively done something to harm someone else.
There is nothing in there about anyone having a "right" to an equal opportunity or any opportunity at all. That would be an affirmative right. And there is no such thing as an affirmative right.
tarran | January 23, 2008, 10:22am | #
James,Here's an idea, why not start your own Walmart Chain?
After all, Walmart's mega profits means that you should be able to undercut them: sell things at far lower prices, and still pay your workers more.
If Walmart is doing the things you are claiming, you should be able to take over both their markets and their workforce relatively easily.
If starting your own chain is too hard, you could try to get a job at Target. Or you could buy stock in Target and sell your ideas to the other shareholders. Target's shareholders would love to take a smaller cut of the bigger pie resulting from taking over 80% of Walmart's business.
Julian Fondren | January 23, 2008, 10:26am | #
Really? Is that what sweatshop labor is?Yes, it is. It really is. It is economic understanding that separates people who can consistently support voluntary interactions, from people who will always find terribly important 'exceptions'. Voluntary trade is always mututally beneficial -- even when the seller is a prostitute; even when one party sells his labor to a 'sweatshop'; even when one person is exchanging a family's lifetime's supply of bread and housing (in money) for a semiprecious stone. Of course you may, having only this principle, still worry about where wages come from, and thus still doubt people when they tell you that competition pushes wages up. You should read a book.
gaijin | January 23, 2008, 10:26am | #
The economic circumstances that we find ourselves in are to a large extent a result of our own decisions, but they are also to a large extent a result of conditions beyond our own control.I think this is true for all people...to different extents. Beyond a basic respect for people that might include provision of subsistence food, clothing and shelter, all other outcomes are far more complicated than any human intervention can address on collectivist terms.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 10:27am | #
I'm no friend of corporations, but they aren't really dictatorships given the fact that most of the big ones have shareholder elections.Gilbert Martin: I was relying more on the "created equal" part in the Dec. of Ind. Of course, it was written by people who owned slaves, so I realize the lack of historical context.
gaijin | January 23, 2008, 10:27am | #
James:They make so much profit there is plenty to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they would just rather give that money to stockholders than to people in their own company who work for it.
Is there some law about workers not being allowed to be stockholders too?
James | January 23, 2008, 10:29am | #
Tarran,No...see thats the point, it is illegal for corporations to not maximize profit for their shareholders, that is the law. Even if it didn't Wal-Mart's (and others Target isn't much better) make it impossible for other companies to be more socially responsible because they wouldn't pay as much to shareholders, and they wouldn't be able to expand as fast. Short of mass organizing and a consumer/labor movement it is very difficult to win against those chain stores.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 10:29am | #
"So because we are afraid of corruption from one more or less democratic gov't we open up avenues for massive massive corruption by multitudes of dictatorial governments (corporations)..."Who says libertarians believe in corporate corruption?
James | January 23, 2008, 10:30am | #
"Is there some law about workers not being allowed to be stockholders too?"Are you joking? You are truly naieve, how much disposable income do you think these workers have?! They don't get healh insurance, in fact a lot of them actually turn to the state for assistance.
gaijin | January 23, 2008, 10:31am | #
Even if it didn't Wal-Mart's (and others Target isn't much better) make it impossible for other companies to be more socially responsible because they wouldn't pay as much to shareholders, and they wouldn't be able to expand as fast.There is no law requiring that companies be publically held--and therefore have to make a profit for shareholders in accordance with Sarbox regulations. There IS a law of supply and demand however...and if you can;t supply what is demanded, then you will be held accountable.
modd | January 23, 2008, 10:31am | #
Income inequalities are more a function of gov't intervention in the markets than leaving them alone.Example, UA CEO Tilton gets bankruptcy protection, uses threat of insolvency to get workers to concede big cuts. CEOs of other airlines use those big cuts, citing inability to compete to get pay cuts at their respective airlines. Result: jobs are 'saved', but workers now work for less industrywide.
Example, Bill and Hillary buy house with huge mortgage. Rent out guesthouse to gov't to pay it.
T | January 23, 2008, 10:32am | #
But to believe that corporate America has more ethics and morals on the American people's behalf than our politicians is an expression of extreme naivety and/or stupidity. History shows differently.No, history shows that power corrupts. The reason corporations exert undue influence on the rest of us, if in fact they do, is because politicians enable it. To pretend politicians are somehow altruistic, noble, moral, and ethical is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of both history and the world as it is.
gaijin | January 23, 2008, 10:33am | #
Are you joking? You are truly naieve, how much disposable income do you think these workers have?! They don't get healh insurance, in fact a lot of them actually turn to the state for assistance.James...please do tell me you work at a Wal Mart?
modd | January 23, 2008, 10:36am | #
Example from the recent pp. of Reason. Local gov't gives tax breaks to bring in a big store like Walmart which will provide jobs. Walmart now operates at an unfair advantage thanks to the gov'tWhen did having health insurance become the sole indicator of a decent lifestyle? Why do socialists always bring up health insurance like it's some kind of necessity on par with food and shelter?
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 10:36am | #
Let's not be forgetting that the REAL motivations of Hillary and her ilk are to increase their own power by buying the votes of their targeted constituency groups by promising them handouts of other people's money.That's all it's really about.
No, I do not work at Walmart, however there have been a lot of studies of Walmart. I have however worked in a series of jobs and worked full time for no health insurance and few benefits. I've worked for companies that give me 40 hours a week for 7 consecutive weeks and then on the eighth week cut my hours so they don't have to pay benefits...and yet they make hundreds of millions in profit...so I do not have a lot of sympathy for their plight.
modd | January 23, 2008, 10:40am | #
Example: people of US 'hire' SEC as a watchdog to insure fairness in the marketplace and uniform accting practices. Now I ask? Who was it that found out Enron?Sean W. Malone | January 23, 2008, 10:41am | #
How has Silva managed to avoid hearing the "libertarian" response to economic inequality??It's not like we're very secretive about it.
What the Hell is "sensible balance"? Define that please. Bet you can't.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 10:43am | #
"They make so much profit there is plenty to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they would just rather give that money to stockholders than to people in their own company who work for it."James has the typical Marxist misconception that only workers create wealth. Investors supply the capital which makes the company possible in the first place. When investors risk their money on a venture, they should be paid out of the profits if there are profits.
James | January 23, 2008, 10:43am | #
"Example: people of US 'hire' SEC as a watchdog to insure fairness in the marketplace and uniform accting practices. Now I ask? Who was it that found out Enron?"Well I would say that the SEC has been emasculated under the Bush administration....if you think like the Bush/Reagan cabal that these comanies will 'police themselves'...welcome to the wild west!
gaijin | January 23, 2008, 10:43am | #
No, I do not work at Walmart, however there have been a lot of studies of Walmart. I have however worked in a series of jobs and worked full time for no health insurance and few benefits. I've worked for companies that give me 40 hours a week for 7 consecutive weeks and then on the eighth week cut my hours so they don't have to pay benefits...and yet they make hundreds of millions in profit...so I do not have a lot of sympathy for their plight.Well, James, I do have sympathy for your plight. Seriously. On the other hand, Walmart is offering $4 prescriptions these days because their supply chain is so efficient. If you get sick, I hope you won't let your principles get in the way of getting the low cost medicine that could help you. I've had to compromise my principles on occassion...in retrospect, I usually find that those principles that require required others to conform to my views were usually misguided.
modd | January 23, 2008, 10:43am | #
We all have healthcare once we bleed all our assets. It's called WELFARE. Why should we protect the assets of people who don't care enough about them to protect them themselves?James | January 23, 2008, 10:45am | #
"James has the typical Marxist misconception that only workers create wealth"I don't think that way...but I do think this coutry has gone so far in the opposite direction...awarding the already wealthy with more and more wealth and it is at the EXPENSE of the workers whose share has steadily declined.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 10:47am | #
"You are truly naieve,"Let's not pretend that lower income workers only buy the basics, and that they never waste any money on lottery tickets, payday advances, bling bling, 20" rims, press-on fingernail airbrushing and other squandernalia. What percentage save $1,000 and buy stock in their company and what percentage spend it?
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 10:48am | #
"Walmart is offering $4 prescriptions"My job offers health insurance. I guess it's a wash.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 10:50am | #
it's a process that needs to be "managed properly."That in a nutshell is Hillary's view on everything.
mitch | January 23, 2008, 10:52am | #
Jacob,Good article. I hope we will be seeing similar articles in Reason about the economic proposals of the other front runners, namely Obama, Romney, and McCain.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 10:53am | #
They don't get healh insurance, in fact a lot of them actually turn to the state for assistance.Wal-Mart does offer health insurance to its full-time employees.
Employees who still qualify for state medical aid are encouraged to do so by Wal-Mart, IIRC. This program was started in the early 90's by Democrats to encourage welfare to work.
James | January 23, 2008, 10:55am | #
"Walmart is offering $4 prescriptions these days because their supply chain is so efficient."I must say that going to the doctor is not so inexpensive and if you are like me and have no insurance it is only more expensive. Wal-Mart has indeed created an impressivly efficient operation...I think the cheap presriptons from Wal-Mart are more a move to head off the growing demand for universal healthcare...as well as the fact that most medicines are relatively cheap to make in bulk and the Pharmaceutical industry is a huge racket. I do believe in markets in a lot of areas, I don't believe in a command economy where the gov't owns everything and parcels it out to a grateful nation...however I am a liberal in that I think we can create a formula as a society that limits suffering on the low end and excessive opulant wealth on the other...that doesn't mean that I don't want incentives to work hard and live intelligently.
claus | January 23, 2008, 10:56am | #
"The reason corporations exert undue influence on the rest of us, if in fact they do, is because politicians enable it."You just proved my point: you can't let corporate America run the US on their own adhering to the free market philosophy without politicians (like Hillary) interfering on behalf of the American people. Thank you.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 10:59am | #
I think the cheap presriptons from Wal-Mart are more a move to head off the growing demand for universal healthcareOr it could be a continuation of Sam Walton's philosophy of 'Squeeze as much as you can from your suppliers and pass the savings along to the customers'.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:01am | #
as well as the fact that most medicines are relatively cheap to make in bulkThey are cheap to make. They are not cheap to research.
Also, there is also the overhead cost of the research that does not pan out.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:02am | #
...I think we can create a formula as a society that limits suffering on the low end and excessive opulant wealth on the other...If we could only get the right people in charge of things, we won't recreate the failures of the past.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 11:03am | #
"Squeeze as much as you can from your suppliers and pass the savings along to the customers"And that includes those who supply your labor.
I though Sam Walton said something about buying American goods...Hmm...I seem to remember Wal-Mart passing itself off as a really patriotic operation in the early to mid 1990s...what ever happend to that?
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 11:05am | #
"you can't let corporate America run the US on their own adhering to the free market philosophy without politicians (like Hillary) interfering on behalf of the American people."The only way government should intervene is if the corporation is engaged in fraudulent practices.
Sean W. Malone | January 23, 2008, 11:05am | #
Claus:The free market economy and capitalism in US has certainly proved that it can't run things itself.
Which free market economy is that?
The one where companies and private individuals use government force to subsidize or "protect" their own products and marketshares, or the one where other companies and private individuals use government force to zone certain businesses in or out of towns, regulate every aspect of what certain companies do or take over the markets outright (healthcare, energy, water, etc.)?
I think you've come to the wrong site to lament the woes of the non-existent "free market" in America.
"Without political incentives there were no green economy or any green collar jobs. Without political regulations USA would loose (sic) in any competition with fx China, who has neither any costly environmental nor labor regulations. We can't compete Internationally with a country that pays a worker a dollar a day."
Well... Immediately provable FALSE.
REI, Johnson & Johnson, Burgerville are three companies I can name in the Pacific Northwest alone in America which did go "green" long before regulations and in fact not at all because of them but rather because they believed they were doing the right thing.
Why do people whining about environmentalism always seem to forget that there are actually real, live people working for, and owning, corporations. Real, live, people who care about stuff - like the environment, their families, their dog... just like you.
No, not every company is going to do it right away - but as has been very clearly established in the last few years, "green" is a potentially enormous selling point.
"And just look at the stock and housing market - does greed seem to solve our financial and fiscal problems?"
So "corporate greed" caused the Fed to artificially lower interest rates and the US legislature to strongly push incentives for banks to lend money to low-income families so that they could "become home-owners and share in the equity wealthier people have enjoyed for years, thus lowering the income gap"??
Did you not bother to look slightly deeper to figure out WHY the housing bubble happened? I mean, "corporate greed" sure is a great rallying cry, but it's pretty shallow when you get down to it.
"Now, does this mean that we have to transform into a communistic or socialistic society? I don't think so."
On that much we are agreed.
"But to believe that corporate America has more ethics and morals on the American people's behalf than our politicians is an expression of extreme naivety and/or stupidity. History shows differently."
Does it now? Examples please.
Silva: Concerning these large increases in income inequality, see Thomas Sowell's column today (townhall.com/columnists). Yes, the gap between the highest and lowest income brackets has increased over recent years, but most of the people who were once in the lowers bracket are no longer there. In fact, more in the lowest have risen to the highest than have remained in the lowest with a certain time period. So this idea of a dichotomy between a fixed "rich" and fixed "poor" is just selective (ab)use of statistics.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 11:08am | #
"I though Sam Walton said something about buying American goods...Hmm...I seem to remember Wal-Mart passing itself off as a really patriotic operation in the early to mid 1990s...what ever happend to that?"I have no objections to Wal-Mart selling foreign products if they save consumers money.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:09am | #
And that includes those who supply your labor.True, Wal-Mart is anti-union because of its 'keep prices as low as possible for the customer' philosophy.
It does pay the prevailing wage for retail labor. Even at low skill levels, there is a shortage of good workers.
P Brooks | January 23, 2008, 11:09am | #
Clinton would use higher taxes to pay for universal preschool, universal college, universal health care, and universal high-speed Internet access, among other taxpayer-funded goodies.When I first saw Hillary's "christmas present ad" I thought it was a parody; then I was slowly suffused with dread as I realized it was actually a serious (and likely effective) attempt to buy the muddled-headed, sobbing socialist/ progressive vote.
-----
And, Silva-
This particular libertarian would be delighted to see the abolition of corporate welfare and the ability of special pleaders to obtain concentrated benefits by using the government to impose costs on diffuse and unorganized segments of the population. "Regulatory Capture" is what they call it.
That will never happen if the power of government over the economy is increased, as Hillary, et c, want to do.
The guy who tells it like it is... | January 23, 2008, 11:10am | #
James:"I have however worked in a series of jobs and worked full time for no health insurance and few benefits. I've worked for companies that give me 40 hours a week for 7 consecutive weeks and then on the eighth week cut my hours so they don't have to pay benefits...and yet they make hundreds of millions in profit...so I do not have a lot of sympathy for their plight."
I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for your plight. It's all about bargaining power, and it sounds to me like you're not carrying very much around with you.
You could stand up for yourself and say that you're going to quit unless they compensate you better... but there are plenty of other people who can replace you, and both you and your employer know it. So you're stuck having to swallow whatever cock they feel like feeding you.
So why do some people earn huge salaries while you get kicked around? Simple... They bring skills, experience, or capabilities that create value for their employer, and they can't be easily replaced. You on the other hand... well, you get my point.
The corporate world is desperate to find capable people who are committed to getting things done. People who deliver results and inspire others to do likewise. Such people are hard to find, and they don't come cheap. You simply have to prove that you're one of them, and trust me.... actions speak far louder than words.
So, you can do two things... keep whining about how the man is keeping you down, or shut up and seriously get to work. The world's becoming more and more a meritocracy... better get used to it.
modd | January 23, 2008, 11:12am | #
James,on Enron, precisely my point. It ultimately showed the fox was watching the henhouse.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:12am | #
"I though Sam Walton said something about buying American goods...Hmm...I seem to remember Wal-Mart passing itself off as a really patriotic operation in the early to mid 1990s...what ever happend to that?"I vaguealy remember that advertising campaign. I believe the offer was if an American company can produce the item for the same price as a foreign company, then Wal-Mart would buy the American made product.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 11:12am | #
James -The government keeps affordable clinics from popping up (see the example of CVS in Boston) to serve those who don't need to pay $180 for a visit to the doctor for them to prescribe a medicine that you already know you need.
Matt J | January 23, 2008, 11:13am | #
Of all of Hillary's economic prescriptions that piss me off the mortgage bail out prescription makes me damn near insane.We purchased our first home at the hight of the housing boom. We were offered all kinds of gimmick mortgages that would have gotten us into a bigger, more expensive house with a pool for zero down, low (initial) monthly payments etc...
We were tempted, but did the prudent thing. We bought a house we could afford and took out a fixed rate mortgage at a slightly higher, yet still historically unbelievable, rate than we could have. We were even big enough suckers to make a substantial down payment because, like assholes apparently, we worked and saved up money before starting the house hunt.
Now, Hillary and a host of others want to come along and bail out all the fucks who couldn't or wouldn't read the fine print. All the shitards who never learned that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing. All the wannabe Trumps that got caught mid flip.
Well fuck you very much. What the hell were we thinking being responsible? We must have been high. We should have known that these days no one has to suffer from the consequences of their bad choices. I could be floating in my pool, sipping a Mai Thai waiting for my bail out check from Uncle Sam.
James | January 23, 2008, 11:14am | #
"I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for your plight."Well it is much appreciated, you really seem to know me, I think this is the official motto of the libertarian movement.
T | January 23, 2008, 11:15am | #
You just proved my point: you can't let corporate America run the US on their own adhering to the free market philosophy without politicians (like Hillary) interfering on behalf of the American people. Thank you.Wait, what? Way to misinterpret what I wrote, sparky. Corporations get legislation passed that benefits them at the expense of the general public. Politicians (like Clinton) pass this legislation. So the politicians are interfering on the behalf of the American people how, exactly?
Quick examples for the slow: Every protectionist tariff ever passed, agricultural subsidies, zoning exemptions, etc.
Politicians and the government are complicit in almost all of the "corporatism" problems you ignuts keep whining about, yet you have this delusional fantasy that politicians will fix the problem with the next new piece of legislation. Man, this is battered spouse syndrome in action.
"Yeah, honey, I screwed the US healthcare system up, but if you just come back to me, I'll make it all better. You'll see! It'll be different this time!"
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 11:21am | #
And Matt J -I frequently feel like an asshole for being responsible with my money.
My condolences on your responsible purchase.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:22am | #
James,Forgive me for being nosy, but your comments are articulate so I assume you posses above average intelligence and you obviously comfortable enought to have internet access, why have you been saddled with such crappy jobs?
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 11:22am | #
Walmart is certainly not above being disingenuous in its marketing of American made goods.More importantly, Walmart will squeeze your local politicians to get the lowest prices to the consumer. Corporate welfare is OK to many pro-corporate libertarians. Nobody cares if 79¢ ass-wiping paper is subsidized by local taxes when it comes to all-awesome-all-the-time Walmart. Supply chain, ya know?
Incidentally, MattJ has my vote.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 11:23am | #
"I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for your plight.""Well it is much appreciated, you really seem to know me, I think this is the official motto of the libertarian movement."
Charity is the responsibility of individuals, not the government.
P Brooks | January 23, 2008, 11:24am | #
...I think we can create a formula as a society that limits suffering on the low end and excessive opulant wealth on the other...My suffering would be greatly alleviated if our public schools devoted more of their efforts to teaching students to spell, and less to extolling the virtues of universal government meddling.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:26am | #
Corporate welfare is OK to many pro-corporate libertarians.I can't speak for all libertarians, but the people who post on this board have been very much against it.
Also, the articles in Reason have been very much against it, also.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 11:26am | #
"Corporate welfare is OK to many pro-corporate libertarians. Nobody cares if 79¢ ass-wiping paper is subsidized by local taxes when it comes to all-awesome-all-the-time Walmart."I have never heard of any libertarians who believe in government subsidies.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:29am | #
My suffering would be greatly alleviated if our public schools devoted more of their efforts to teaching students to spellAlso the effect of compound interest. I learned about the wonders of compound interest in my second year of algebra. The lesson has stayed with me all these year.
I too, saved money for a downpayment on my house and chose not to get a variable rate mortgage.
T | January 23, 2008, 11:29am | #
Matt J,I feel your pain. One idiot I know just got a 3 point bump on his ARM. What kind of a fucktard signs a contract like that? And he has maybe 5K equity in the house... after 3 years. He is seriously considering deed in lieu of foreclosure if he can't sell it. Why wouldn't he?
Now the .gov is gonna bail out all the tards. Way to screw the rest of us.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:33am | #
One idiot I know just got a 3 point bump on his ARM. What kind of a fucktard signs a contract like that?Especially when interest rates are historically low.
It's a shame the schools don't teach economic history very well.
Or teach economics very well.
Or for that matter, teach very well.
James | January 23, 2008, 11:35am | #
"What kind of a fucktard signs a contract like that?"I don't know these 'fucktards' but I would say that the people who signed these contracts are probably people who were desperate and did not know a lot about mortgages, not to mention that mortgage fraud was the #1 white collar crime. So these were horrible deals...no doubt about it, but taking advantage of the ignorance or desparation of others isn't such a great business either...
JNR | January 23, 2008, 11:35am | #
Well it is much appreciated, you really seem to know me, I think this is the official motto of the libertarian movement.And it seems the official motto of the modern liberal movement is surprisingly similar:
Yes, we do know you and we know that without our help you would be nothing. Don't worry, we'll hold your hand while you piss, and while we're at it we'll subjugate those nasty corporations who are always bringing you down.
Of course, then we're just replacing one Man with another one, this time in a pant-suit.
And now for some oh-so-helpful anecdotal:
You say you've been a helpless wage slave many times in your life? What a coincidence! I've had similar experiences. I'll even add some background.
Here's me: barely a high-school grad, no college education, no formal skills to speak of, et cetera. My dad is a disabled vet in a state with no benefits for disabled vets, but he makes too much money at his new job to qualify me for educational assistance, and not enough to put me through school. So I go to work.
I work some pretty shitty jobs, though I never worked for Wal-mart. I went without health benefits many times in my life. By all (your) counts, I'm shackled to opportunistic inequity, forever doomed to a life of non-living wages and no benefits.
*cue VH1 Where Are They Now Music*
So where am I now? I work in the airline industry for a software company. I make more money than high school teachers with masters degrees who've been teaching for ten years in my state. I have health benefits. I contribute 12% of my yearly income to a 401k.
I do all of this while paying an assload of taxes to a government that has never 'leveled the playing field' for me, even though I ostensibly pay them to do such, without any choice otherwise. I also donate 10-15% of my pre-taxable income to various charities, every month. I volunteer at care centers and food projects. I once helped raise $15,000 for the Salvation Army.
So, as you can see, I have no sympathy for your plight, either. Nobody gave a shit about me and yet I somehow pulled myself up and made something, and now I spend my time making money and sharing that with people I care about, with no apparent help from a government which I so handsomely pay.
Clinton can take her economic plan and shove it.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 11:38am | #
"Also, the articles in Reason have been very much against [subsidies]."Most posters on any given Walmart thread enthusiastically defend Walmart and Walmart's corporate strategy. My point is that many people here many times turn a blind eye to freebies from local municipalities when they like the store.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:41am | #
I don't know these 'fucktards' but I would say that the people who signed these contracts are probably people who were desperate and did not know a lot about mortgagesObviously, the government needs to create a new program to combat mortgage ingnorance.
adrian | January 23, 2008, 11:43am | #
The US economy is not free-market and is not pure capitalism and has never been. It is a mixed-economy with plenty of government intervention and planning, thus the problems.Required Reading: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand (and others)
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 11:43am | #
"What kind of a f*cktard signs a contract like that?"A lot of people do, and they vote, and they don't apply any more logic to their voting than they do to their finances.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 11:43am | #
I think we can create a formula as a society that limits suffering on the low end and excessive opulant wealth on the otherThe major problem here is how you define these terms. The great great great great majority of Americans are not "suffering," literally, financially, or otherwise.
It absolutely offends me when people suggest that "we" need to pay poor people more on a moral basis. Barbara Ehrenreich can suck it, because she did a crap-tastic job of trying to live off low-wage jobs. I guess I could spend all of my money every year and go into thousands of dollars of debt and then complain that I don't have enough money, but that certainly wouldn't be the truth. Suffering people don't have:
TV
Computers
Massively-contracted cell phone plans with elaborate cell phones
Nice cars/car loans/car insurance
iPods
1-bedroom apartments for 1 or 2 occupants
the ability to eat out once or more a week
etc, etc, etc,
Those who complain that we send "good jobs" "oversees" to pay people "a dollar a day" to produce our cheap goods can shove it. I actually care about people who are ACTUALLY suffering, and if you think outsourcing hasn't had a history of helping those who are ACTUALLY suffering by giving them jobs, etc., you're living under a very elite rock.
P Brooks | January 23, 2008, 11:47am | #
I would say that the people who signed these contracts are probably people who were desperateWhy would you say that? "Desperate" in what way?
Desperate to get into a house they couldn't actually afford to buy?
As for the whole "trapped in a shitty job" thing, boo-fucking-hoo; go sing that song somewhere else. Even the Dread Oppressor Walmart is desperate for ambitious, motivated people. If you go to work at Walmart, and demonstrate a willingness to work and an ability to learn, you will get put on the fast track.
Matt J | January 23, 2008, 11:48am | #
I don't know these 'fucktards' but I would say that the people who signed these contracts are probably people who were desperate and did not know a lot about mortgages, not to mention that mortgage fraud was the #1 white collar crime. So these were horrible deals...no doubt about it, but taking advantage of the ignorance or desparation of others isn't such a great business either...Then send the fucking brokers to jail and let the duped sue their companies for recompense. Don't fuck me and my potential to get a decent rate in the future. Is that really so much to ask for?
And desperate? Fucking rent if you can't afford a house. Maybe cut back on non-essentials and save like... you know... we did!
You don't have to be a economist to get the concept of, "if it sounds to good to be true it probably is." A working knowledge of Aesop's Fables should suffice.
JNR,
Amen.
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 11:51am | #
This country suffers from a bad case of "keeping up with the Joneses," and we actually consider psychological suffering from not being able to have every modern amenity imaginable embarassing, and therefore suffering.That's not suffering. Not being able to eat, living in a shack the size of a 1-car garage with a leaky roof with 8 people in it, and not being able to get medicines that we take for granted to cure what we consider the simplest of diseases... that's suffering.
Herman the German | January 23, 2008, 11:51am | #
"Now the .gov is gonna bail out all the tards. Way to screw the rest of us."And encourage more reliance in the future on the government. New Orleans after Katrina is an example of what happens to people who become too dependent on government and don't develop any self-reliance.
T | January 23, 2008, 11:51am | #
I don't know these 'fucktards' but I would say that the people who signed these contracts are probably people who were desperate and did not know a lot about mortgagesOne does not buy a house out of desperation. The correct word is 'stupid'.
And yes, fraud is bad and should not be tolerated. There's plenty o' blame on both sides of the issue. What's even worse is making the rest of us, who either bought with our means or decided our means did not extend to housing quite yet, take it in the shorts so the ignorant buyers and foolish lenders don't have to suffer for the consequences of their actions. Making everyone pay for the mistakes of a few is morally bankrupt.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 11:54am | #
Lamar's Fake Godwin Law:In any online discussion of economic policy, the probability of the whole thing denigrating into "Rah Rah Rah Walmart" vs. "Damn Walmart to Hell" approaches one.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 11:56am | #
Lamar,If someone brings up Walmart in a thread that has nothing to do with Walmart, can we invoke your law?
Reinmoose | January 23, 2008, 11:57am | #
Lamar -I think you're allowing personal bias to creep in here. I don't see anyone championing Wal-Mart, and James is the one that kept bringing it up.
claus | January 23, 2008, 11:57am | #
Sean:"Which free market economy is that?
I think you've come to the wrong site to lament the woes of the non-existent "free market" in America."
America is the closest we get to a free market economy, the biggest difference being America adhering to "Free Market Capitalism", while Europe adhere to a "Socio-Economics".
Both systems use the instruments of subsidizing to protect their own products and market shares. China, by the way, "subsidize" by keeping the yuan artificially weak against the dollar.
You can say a totally free market does not exist, but if you look at our trade deficit towards amongst others China you would know that America is abiding to the free market policy so much, that we are strangling ourselves in doing so. In Europe that would have been stopped before it began, as each European state as a member of EU abide to a set of rules promoting fair trade on both sides of the state/country borders. Being a Free Market Capitalist economy we obviously don't have such rules. And we are loosing jobs and money to our Overseas competitors every day for that reason.
"Why do people whining about environmentalism always seem to forget that there are actually real, live people working for, and owning, corporations."
Please! For each company you can show me having spend money on the environment without regulations attached to it I can show you a thousand that wouldn't care if the Earth became an environmental toilet. "No, not every company is going to do it right away." You bet. The thousands of poorly hidden chemical and dangerous dumps all over US from the "happy" 50-60-and 70's before grassroots, and later politicians, began to react are dark clouds on corporate America's "environmental conscience".
The truth is, that people, like corporations, nearly alway jump over where the fence is the lowest, preferring profit nest to doing the right thing. I applaud the few that don't. But don't be naive and think that people or corporations want to do the right thing when profit is involved.
"Did you not bother to look slightly deeper to figure out WHY the housing bubble happened?"
Predatory lending to maximize profit for stock holders pissing on low income borrowers who are now forced into foreclosure. Same corporate America who wouldn't give a damn if the environment turned black or blue. Oh - did you forget to read about this? Try the old news first, starting 6 months back.
History shows differently. "Does it now? Examples please" You cannot seriously want me to list companies? Here's a link, however, establishing the fact that 40 out of 100 Fortune companies behaved unethical - that's almost half, that we KNOW of on this particular list alone.
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml;jsessionid=1BOZ35HUZZEMIAKRGWCB5VQBKE0YOISW?id=BH203&referral=2341
"This study of reports in the business news between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2005 found that as of 1999, 40 corporations in the Fortune 100 had behaved in ways that can be considered unethical. The behavior included three types of fraud (accounting, securities, and consumer), discriminatory practices, undisclosed executive pay, antitrust activities, patent infringement, and other violations of the law. Based on the unacceptability of the misdeeds committed, this article ranks the 40 firms into three categories. Also uses research on business ethics and the behavior of executives, boards of directors, and even government officials to suggest why such unethical behavior was allowed to occur. Concludes with recommendations for improving business behavior and suggests important roles for future business leaders and the broader American public."
I rest my case.
Lamar | January 23, 2008, 12:07pm | #
"If someone brings up Walmart in a thread that has nothing to do with Walmart, can we invoke your law?"I think that's the only time we can invoke the law!
Back to the point: Hillary's plans are more likely to exacerbate the problem of economic inequality, but I think the issue of equal opportunity is a valid concern.
Danny | January 23, 2008, 12:10pm | #
Is it wrong that Hillary turns me on after reading this? I mean, I wouldn't vote for her, but she would make one great dominatrix.Hillary's proposals are no different than standing at the door of the polling place and saying, "Pssst- Hey, Buddy! I'll give you a hunnert bucks if you go in there and cast yer vote for ME."
One look at yesterday's Onion piece on politicians pandering to the obese vote will cure you of your [H]illness.
claus | January 23, 2008, 12:14pm | #
T,"Corporations get legislation passed that benefits them at the expense of the general public."
Please don't fall into the old conspiracy-ditch? We already know that corporations are extremely effective in lobbying on Capitol Hill, but to state that corporate America run this country is way off.
First of all, small businesses are the majority in this country, and they don't have the kinda money it takes to lobby in Washington. You always hear about the influence of the big corporations - and even though their impact on American policies are extensive, you have to put things in perspective:
85 percent of Americans view small businesses as a positive influence on American life (NFIB, 2001).
Small businesses account for more than 40 percent of the offline economy (IDC, January 2001).
An estimated 25.5 million small businesses in America employ more than half of the country's private workforce, create three of every four new jobs, and generate a majority of American innovations (Small Business Administration, 2000).
Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers (Small Business Administration, December, 2000).
swillfredo pareto | January 23, 2008, 12:19pm | #
Do you think it is only profit that makes Wal-Mart a huge union-busting operation, of course not! They make so much profit there is plenty to pay their workers a reasonable wage, they would just rather give that money to stockholders than to people in their own company who work for it.I don’t want to burst your bubble but Wal-Mart hasn’t paid shit to its stockholders for about the last 10 years. I am one, and have been since I busted my ass there my first three years out of college. I get a quarterly dividend check for somewhere between .5% and .75%. It buys me a couple of bottles of decent scotch. The stock price has not budged for that same period of time. These things are fairly easy to look up. Rather than broadcasting your ignorance why not become educated?
No...see that’s the point, it is illegal for corporations to not maximize profit for their shareholders, that is the law.
James, what in the world are you talking about?
I've worked for companies that give me 40 hours a week for 7 consecutive weeks and then on the eighth week cut my hours so they don't have to pay benefits...and yet they make hundreds of millions in profit...so I do not have a lot of sympathy for their plight.
So why did you work there? You’re rational, right? The way I see it if you had a better opportunity you would not have been there in the first place. So who was the victim?
I seem to remember Wal-Mart passing itself off as a really patriotic operation in the early to mid 1990s...what ever happened to that?
The American consumers told them they would much rather have a lot of cheap shit made by little people in China rather than fewer things made domestically.
R C Dean | January 23, 2008, 12:27pm | #
If we look around the world I believe a strong case can be made that higher inequality leads to less healthy societies.I would say it depends on the source of the inequality.
A kleptocratic nomenklatura skimming all the cream off of an economy is, indeed, both unequal and unhealthy.
An entrepenuerial economy generating wealth by the bucketload for innovators and risk takers is also quite unequal, but not at all unhealthy.
Brett | January 23, 2008, 12:33pm | #
"We can't compete Internationally with a country that pays a worker a dollar a day."We compete on the basis of productivity. One hour of work in the US is more productive than one hour of work in Vietnam, because the US is more heavily capitalized. This allows the US with its higher wages to be internationally competitive.
Lurker Kurt | January 23, 2008, 12:43pm | #
I've worked for companies that give me 40 hours a week for 7 consecutive weeks and then on the eighth week cut my hours so they don't have to pay benefits...and yet they make hundreds of millions in profit...so I do not have a lot of sympathy for their plight.So why did you work there? You’re rational, right? The way I see it if you had a better opportunity you would not have been there in the first place. So who was the victim?
James, we are still waiting to hear how you ended up in such crappy jobs.
Peter | January 23, 2008, 1:07pm | #
Someone quick ... prepare the SNUKE!J sub D | January 23, 2008, 1:09pm | #
"If you really believe you have to manage the economy," she said, "you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it."And Ms. Clinton has displayed her management skills by ???
Other than unrivaled expertise in cattle futures trading, I just don't see it.
Sean W. Malone | January 23, 2008, 1:13pm | #
"Please! For each company you can show me having spend money on the environment without regulations attached to it I can show you a thousand that wouldn't care if the Earth became an environmental toilet."Yeah, you can... or at least, you could have not more than 10-20 years ago, but if you were to wake up from your apparent slumber and look around - you'd notice a major shift happening right now. You're literally making the case that without government, companies would run rampant and rape the environment and that is demonstrably false - especially in America.
Furthermore, the other gigantic piece of the puzzle people who rail against libertarian/free-market economics always seem to miss - especially in terms of pollution - is that it's NOT ok in a free-market to infringe other's freedoms or property.
The environmentalist argument is often best solved through better enforced and more carefully understood property rights. If you as a company with production offices in my backyard want to make chemicals - fine. You can't dump them on my land, because it's my property to do what I want with.
Nice how you leave that little part out though - makes your assertion that the free-market fails nice and clean.
It's not the free-market that fails in any of the cases you mention - it's the rule of law and especially the protection of the basic property and civil rights that are so crucial to the success of a free-market.
Props for the strawmen though Claus.
Gilbert Martin | January 23, 2008, 1:35pm | #
For those here making comments about "corporate welfare" - in aggregate, corporations are net payers of welfare - not recepients of it.The only individuals, companies, or any other entities that are getting "welfare" from any particular unit of government are those whose total dollars of tax payments to that unit of government are less than the dollar value of government services that that received back in return.
Add up all the corporate income taxes paid by the companies AND the taxes paid by their stockholders on their dividends and capital gains as well as state and local income taxes, property taxes and all sorts of other taxes paid by corporations. The value of government services being provided back to the corporations in exchange for all that money doesn't measure up.
Egosumabbas | January 23, 2008, 1:41pm | #
Going back from talking about Walmart to the matter at hand, I RTFA, and I notice a frightening similarity to the prospect of a Hillary Clinton administration on the eve of a recession, and with the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. She's basically advocating PROTECT OUR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY IN THE NAME OF THE CHILDREN, but the end result would be a deepening of our current recession to a full-blown depression. Just some food for thought here.adrian | January 23, 2008, 1:43pm | #
she's borderline communist. equality worked well for Soviet Russia did it not?silva | January 23, 2008, 1:44pm | #
Economic Inequality IIHerman the German made the following argument:
"What is your solution to it Silva? Any attempt to make people more equal results in people being more equal, but at a lower level. Take more money from the wealthy, then there's less money to go into investments to create more jobs. Give people more handouts and you destroy their incentives."
I have heard/read this argument quite often. I do not disagree that incentives for work are important in a society, I do however disagree that economic redistribution can not be combined with such incentives. Progressive taxes can be set at levels that ensure there are always decent returns to work. Support for the poor can be mainly in the form of healthcare and education, something that should not interfere with the motivation to find work.
Several people seem to be arguing that redistribution is impossible to achieve. I believe many democratic societies have made concerted efforts to reduce inequality. Many European societies moved from being much less equal than the US, to being more equal.
When it comes to healthcare: Almost all industrialized countries have some form of universal healthcare. Such systems do present their own challenges, but many work quite well. And in many of these countries people live longer than in the US. I suspect Japan beats the US on almost all health indicators.
And as for the notion raised by MAM that what matters is social mobility. I suspect that social mobility in the US is lower than in many other industrialized countries. Given the rising costs of higher education in the US and the importance of education to perform in a modern economy I think social mobility in the US will fall as inequality encreases.
Reinmoose wrote that we should focus on standard of living and not income inequality. I happen to think that the two are correlated. Compared to other countries with same level of economic development US does not do to well in studies of standard of living.
Egosumabbas | January 23, 2008, 1:54pm | #
Add up all the corporate income taxes paid by the companies AND the taxes paid by their stockholders on their dividends and capital gains as well as state and local income taxes, property taxes and all sorts of other taxes paid by corporations. The value of government services being provided back to the corporations in exchange for all that money doesn't measure up.What about no-bid defense contractors, or government contractors in general?
On the other hand your argument does not justify giving any particular corporation an advantage even if they are a net payer into government coffers. Let's look at Walmart for instance, since they are popular on this thread. Walmart is a HUGE recipient of corporate welfare in the form of welfare to their underpaid employees (food stamps, health care, etc.), their reliance on public road systems (notice that most of their stuff is shipped by truck), getting sweet tax breaks from corrupt local authorities. Though I would agree that even Walmart of all places probably is not a net recipient of welfare. The flip side of Walmart though is that if you're a hard worker there it's fairly easy to work up the corporate ladder there (I have an in-law who's now very well compensated by Walmart). A proper libertarian position would be that Walmart shouldn't disproportionately gain from government largesse and compete on a level playing field: having to supply benefits to its employees or pay more instead of having tax payers pay the bill. Vote out of office any politician who gives a break to Walmart and screws the small businessmen of a locale. At the same time, I think people should voluntarily boycott Walmart and shop local or online if they hate them so much.
Sean W. Malone | January 23, 2008, 2:06pm | #
"Several people seem to be arguing that redistribution is impossible to achieve."Can I go on record saying that redistribution is absolutely "possible to achieve", but also that it is immoral, theft and results in at bare-minimum the looting of individuals who are responsible for creating wealth and at worst will cause complete economic collapse and not just stagnation of standard of living, but over the long-term, regression of quality of life across the board.
What you see in European countries that are more socialist than the US is all well and good - for now. Wealth redistribution can find a balance for brief period of time where the producers aren't still benefiting enough from the system that it's worth their while to stay, although their productive output might suffer at certain levels (the breaks where increasing production will mean too high taxes/cost to warrant the expense in relation to the potential profit for example). But who here has experienced a situation where the use of "a little force" to achieve certain ends hasn't gone as far as it could go?
Ultimately the premise Hillary is making will lead us right there anyway - if "a little" wealth redistribution is ok (which it obviously already "is" in America) then why not a little bit more? And a bit more? Take from the rich - give to the poor, who cares? Rich people have a lot, shouldn't matter...
Well, Europe will see the