Economics/Moralities

[we vs us]

An excellent column by Krugman.  Even if you find his stuff too liberal for you, try this one . . . it has some pivotal insight into our current politics that should be obvious enough for everyone to swallow.

The nut: 

"One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society's winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It's only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That's what lies behind the modern right's fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty."

This is why we shouldn't expect these overtures to bipartisanship actually have any staying power.  We are deeply and legitimately divided over possibly THE core principle of governance:  what is the role of our government in the modern era, and as he says in the article, we've gotten to the point where there's really no middle ground between the two ideologies.

[waterboy]

Worse than that, if either side totally prevails, the system falls apart and anarchy ensues.

[Gaspar]

An excellent column by Krugman.  Even if you find his stuff too liberal for you, try this one . . . it has some pivotal insight into our current politics that should be obvious enough for everyone to swallow.

The nut: 

This is why we shouldn't expect these overtures to bipartisanship actually have any staying power.  We are deeply and legitimately divided over possibly THE core principle of governance:  what is the role of our government in the modern era, and as he says in the article, we've gotten to the point where there's really no middle ground between the two ideologies.

What if you're not one of "societies winners"?  What if you are just a guy or gal who worked twice as hard to get where you are?

When I get a commission check I didn't win it.  I worked harder, innovated more, and pushed myself for the purpose of earning more money.  When I receive a royalty, it is because something I developed has provided value to someone else.

This is always my problem with Krugman and his ilk.  They have this twisted view of success as being like some giant roulette wheel with success being won and failure as a perpetual state of being. 

It is hard to find middle ground when people operate from divergent lexicons.  In order to work together we need to be able to agree on terminology that is truthful.  This has been the failure in the debate between liberal and conservative views forever and I don't think there is a solution.

At the heart of the liberal/progressive movement is the requirement of assigning the individual to a group and then treating them according to the attributes and values associated with that group, rather than evaluating people on an individual basis.  These groups are then pitted in opposition to each other with government in the middle.  This parental view of government is not only dysfunctional but corrosive to production.  It demonizes success, glorifies failure, and deitizes politicians. 

[we vs us]

The reason I posted this wasn't so much to get into a lib/con ideological pissing match so much as to point out that the two ideologies have no common ground at this point.  There's nowhere in the middle to meet.  I think taxes and a solid welfare safety net are important and what's more, a moral imperative; you think that's essentially larceny and a corruption of the state -- also, coincidentally, a moral stance.  There's nowhere for us to compromise. 

What's crucial, too, about the article is that this is relatively new.  For most of the 20th century (1930's through 1990's) there was a welfare state consensus . . . there could be discussions of levels of care, spending, and efficiencies, but both parties agreed upon what "the common good" tended to meet. Now the two polarities are waaaaay off on what this core principle actually means.

 

[nathanm]

What if you're not one of "societies winners"?  What if you are just a guy or gal who worked twice as hard to get where you are?

When I get a commission check I didn't win it.  I worked harder, innovated more, and pushed myself for the purpose of earning more money.  When I receive a royalty, it is because something I developed has provided value to someone else.

What you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.

Without your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing.

You think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.

I think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.

Either way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.

[Cats Cats Cats]

What you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.

Without your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing.

You think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.

I think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.

Either way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.

Don't forget wrongfully sued for what you get your royalties on by a larger corporation trying to drag you through court and run you out of business.

[Conan71]

Nathan, being born under the right sign doesn't guarantee the opportunity at having a great job vs. a crappy one.  It also takes education, initiative, attitude, and a proven track record of work ethic to secure the opportunity in the first place.  There's little, if any, luck involved.  Where I work now, part of the reason I have the job is because it's owned and run by old family friends.  However, they made overtures to me for at least ten years before I went to work for them because they knew I was a highly successful salesman.  If I couldn't sell and didn't have the track record to prove it, I would have been of no use to them if all I could do was come in and make coffee every day.

The liberal view makes the assumption that conservatives don't want to pay ANY taxes.  That's absolutely incorrect.  Myself and others I know don't have a problem paying taxes.  What we do have a problem with is a bloated government which wastes billions upon billions of dollars not all on social welfare, but bullshit regulations, creating one un-needed bureaucracy after another, and thinking money is the solution for every single problem so they keep on printing more.  I think most people share my view that I'm really reticent to hand over more money to the government when they are doing an incredibly piss poor job handing the money they have now.  It's not my fault the government is so far in debt.  The government has stuck it's nose into far too many things it has no business in, it thinks it has to be the world's police force, and the first to open it's wallet when catastrophe faces another nation.

I don't see how that is a selfish or greedy view.  People simply don't get too jazzed about their productivity being confiscated to pay for a mis-managed government.

[Gaspar]

What you won was being in a position to earn that commission check. You won it by mere accident of birth. You won it by not being run over by a drunk when you were a kid and losing the use of your arms. You won it when you didn't end up with messed up brain chemistry resulting in a nearly impossible to shake depression.

Yeah!  I survived.  Good for me.  I have no problem providing aid and assistance for people with disabilities.  That represents a very small fraction of the moocher class in this country.

Without your hard work, you would not have been likely to capitalize on that luck, but without that luck, no amount of hard work would have saved you.

I feel blessed every day.

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone less fortunate than you is in that position due to laziness and not for some other reason. Some people less fortunate than you are indeed there through nothing more than their unwillingness to work to achieve something, but some work harder than you and still manage to make almost nothing

No, I do not.  You are attempting to classify everyone who makes less money as somehow disabled or "less fortunate", when most are simply less driven, and socialized into believing that success is only a dream.  I know many who work harder than I do, and they typically are not the ones complaining. 

You think it's my housekeeper's fault that the economy is in the toilet, thus leaving her with few clients these days? I guaran-damn-tee you she works harder than any of us between her self-employment and a couple of part time jobs cleaning offices. After all, we find the time to post here. Yet she's the one who can't make ends meet.

Nor is it my fault that the economy is here.  The very practice of granting largess to those who can't afford it is how we got here.  We are simmering in our own soup. 

I think letting people starve is more immoral than being taxed to feed the hungry. Some disagree, but it's a fundamental disagreement.

No one is interested in allowing anyone to starve.  Funding poverty only begets more poverty.  Poverty must be uncomfortable in order to make achievement attractive.  Subsidize only those things that you wish to grow.  The war on poverty has converted it from a temporary misfortune into a career choice.

Either way, this is further illustration of Krugman's exact point; there is fundamental disagreement on the nature of success in our society and the role of government to help curb capitalism's seedy underbelly.

You are correct, government does have a role in enforcing the law, but the seedy practices you allude to have very little to do with capitalism.  If the goal is to ensure doors are open to everyone, I'm all for it, but if the goal is to limit freedom, because freedom represents risk, then the argument must continue.

Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer

[guido911]

Nate:

I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!!  And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.

[Conan71]

Nate:

I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!!  And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.

You aren't fortunate, you are lucky.

[guido911]

You aren't fortunate, you are lucky.

You're right. I stand corrected.

[Townsend]

I understand some people need help. 

That being said...I'd like it if we could make it a rule that anyone receiving money from the government as living assistance was unable to purchase anything with a sin tax.

I'm sure we've gone over this before but I just don't think it makes sense to help pay for someone's tobacco products/alcohol/etc.

[guido911]

I understand some people need help. 

That being said...I'd like it if we could make it a rule that anyone receiving money from the government as living assistance was unable to purchase anything with a sin tax.

I'm sure we've gone over this before but I just don't think it makes sense to help pay for someone's tobacco products/alcohol/etc.

Sounds awfully mean-spirited and possibly conservative.

[Townsend]

Sounds awfully mean-spirited and possibly conservative.

I have many conservative opinions.  This one just seems like a no-brainer.

Edited to add that some of the stuff you post is wild-assed crazy to me so I post opinions on those as well.

[we vs us]

Nate:

I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!!  And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.

You, sir, are the naturally-occurring proof of Krugman's theorem.  Congrats!