In these recent posts, we discussed the balance that is needed between "everyone for themselves with no government/society forced wealth redistribution" (~Capitalism) and "government/society cost and redistribute too much wealth". (~Socialism)
The first in extreme means the only safety nets are through private donations. Citizens must work hard and be somewhat lucky to thrive. And if you are lazy or unlucky, you better hope you find a caring person or organization to help you out or you will go hungry and probably die young... (ie effective motivator, but a bit cold hearted for our modern sensibilities)
The second in extreme means that people are taken care of by government/society even if they are lazy or unlucky. And to top this off, the services are paid for by the hard working and lucky. So you are rewarded for little effort and penalized for working hard... (ie kind in theory, but a recipe for failure)
The topic of discussion then is:
- Is the Egyptian mess an example of what happens when societies err too much to the first extreme?
- Is it worth redistributing more wealth in order to buy peace and tranquility?
- Could something like this ever happen in the USA if the hardline Conservatives ever got their dream of really small government and almost no wealth redistribution?
- How does a society motivate the Free Loaders to work hard and contribute while providing adequate safety nets?
- Will we ever be willing to just let Free Loaders truly experience the extreme consequences of their inaction? Should we?
G2A Entitlement or Gratitude
G2A Politics in America
10 comments:
The Egyptian mess is a natural result of socialism, in which the political elites have so much power that the money follows and opportunity and free markets are squelched. Without private ownership of capital, capitalism cannot create wealth and redistribution cannot take place. The rich get richer and the poor get nothing.
Could a socialist or tyrannical dictatorship "buy" peace by redistributing wealth? Perhaps, but it would have to be the wealth of the ruling masters, and that's unlikely to happen. And since they have suppressed the total economy by not allowing widespread capital formation and utilization, there isn't enough to go around anyway.
You cannot motivate the lazy by offering public safety nets, because they always become hammocks. And government welfare always begins with theft, through taxation. The unlucky can and will be helped by private charity IF government gets out of the way and makes it necessary, and leaves people the means to BE charitable. Those who accrue great wealth, and many of lesser means, almost always find that charity is something they "need" after their other needs are fulfilled.
J. Ewing
"Is it worth redistributing more wealth in order to buy peace and tranquility?"
Without peace or tranquility, there isn't much point in being wealthy. Both Marx and the central European economists tea partiers love and who were so influenced by Marx, believed that capitalist economies were inherently and sometimes wildly cyclical. Marx hated and feared such economic cycles, because he experienced them. Modern conservatives and tea partiers take a more benign attitude toward them, possibly because they haven't.
"You cannot motivate the lazy by offering public safety nets, because they always become hammocks."
Oftentimes, you can't motivate people by offering them incentives, and perhaps one challenge of 21st century capitalism is to find ways to motivate people when management has no meaningful incentives to offer them. And the flip side of that is that way too often we have seen companies incentivized behavior that turned out to be destructive both to the interests of the company and the economy as a whole. The modern American corporation, way to often, found a way to use gold as the paving material to the path to ruin.
I don't know if there are many lessons for us to be drawn from what's happening in Egypt and in the Arab world. On the whole I am skeptical of lesson finding, just because in my experience I have noticed a curious tendency for people to derive lessons from any given set of events that somehow, through some magical process, support and validate their preexisting beliefs.
That said, the lesson I have drawn is the regimes over time, just wear out. It happens in democratic societies, it happens in autocratic societies, it sometimes happens to football teams. In the west, we have developed strong institutions which survive the fall of those who lead them. Usually. But I wonder about that too. Institutions can wear out too, even in the west.
"Without peace or tranquility, there isn't much point in being wealthy." --Anonymous
"Ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead man." --Chuck Connors as "the Rifleman"
There's no point in being tranquil if you don't have a certain amount of wealth-- at least enough to live. And great wealth can buy you a lot of tranquillity if you can ignore the miserable masses from whom you have stolen it. This is the problem with every other form of government other than the one founded in the US (and which is now being stolen from us), that power tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer people, who use that to enrich themselves first. At some point the people want to control their own lives and seize back power. Unregulated Capitalism may have its boom and bust cycles, but the ebb and flow of tyrannies is far more violent and destructive.
"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money." -- Margaret Thatcher.
J. Ewing
"This is the problem with every other form of government other than the one founded in the US (and which is now being stolen from us), that power tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer people, who use that to enrich themselves first."
You don't think this is true of the United States? Where wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer people, whose power is therefore increasing?
"The problem with capitalism is that with respect to money, sooner or later, everybody runs out of their own."
I don't think that is true, yet, of the United States. But the federal government (and Minnesota State government) continue to expand and accrue power unto themselves. They use this to enrich their friends, stealing either from businesses or "the rich," thus destroying the capital needed for broad economic growth.
We had a period in this country of "unbridled capitalism" during which the railroads, roads and factories were built, and a few people got very rich building the capital that provided jobs and a base for further economic gains. Those people then gave away vast chunks of their wealth to found the great philanthropic, charitable and educational institutions that, again. contributed so much to the development and sustaining of our human capital in this country. In short, free-market capitalism isn't the enemy that Obama and his ilk believe it is. It is, in fact, the most compassionate and humanity-affirming way to run an economy. A tiny bit of government makes it run a bit smoother, but far too easily runs amok. The root of all evil is not the love of money, as the Bible says, but the love of power which begets the money. IMHO, of course.
J. Ewing
So what do you think would happen if we eliminated the budget for HUD, Dept of Agric (ie school lunch and other food programs), Dept of Labor, and Health and Human Services?
According to this site I randomly grabbed... That is a lot of money and it would easily balance our budget.Federal Budget
Would we have riots? How extreme would they get? It seems to me we would have some pretty severe social disruption. (aka Watts Riots)
What would be the impact to our society? Pros and Cons?
By the way, the Dept of Defense looks like it is ripe for the picking also... Checkout "Personnel Stationing" at WIKI US Armed Forces Just some of them are 52,440:Germany, 35,688:Japan, 28,500: S Korea, 9,660:Italy, 9,015: United Kingdom.... Good Lord we know how to spend money !!!
I think there would be riots, and most certainly there would be a political firestorm from the entrenched piggies at the trough. But yes, these so-called welfare programs should be eliminated over time. People will adjust to having to work for food and shelter if that's their only choice, and those who cannot work will find a lot of compassionate and charitable people willing to help them "until they can get back on their feet." That's what charity always was and ought to be-- just enough for the unfortunate few, and only as long as absolutely necessary. I've seen it done; I know it works, and "we" can't afford what "we" are now doing. If our current federal budget is trillions in the red, and our national debt is now approaching our GNP, what are the real choices? Sorry, folks, but somebody needs to get out of the wagon and help pull.
J. Ewing
I tend to agree with J that the current path is not sustainable or rational.
Though I think 75% of the gap closure should be through cuts and 25% should be by increasing the tax rate on that top 1% of wage earners. There is no sense to a person making $10,000,000 per yr paying the same rate as someone making $350,000 per yr. They definitely are getting more benefits of living in the USA... (ie high income and living large)Link
If I have any Liberal readers, what do you think we should do? Keep spending more so there is less incentive for people to work? How is your paradigm different from J and mine?
How do we convince people that it really is worth something to pay more to buy from American companies that manufacture in America? Instead of looking for the best deal? I ask because it will be harder to cut services if there are few good moderate paying jobs? (ie living on fast food pay would be difficult) Part of Egypt's problem....
And don't most Liberals drive Hondas, Hyundais, Toyotas, VWs, etc ??? or Maybe not...
Here is the LINK from above.
Post a Comment