-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Inequality in Perspective
Liberal thinking is all we need to know about life’s fundamental unfairness.
(Page 2 of 2)
Both liberals and conservatives care about equality. They differ, however, in regard to what they mean by equality. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, liberals want equality of outcomes.
In his book Free to Choose Milton Friedman wrote, “A society that puts equality — in the sense of outcome — ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom…. On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
Cuba is one of the left’s favorite countries. Almost everyone in Cuba receives the same income: $15 a month. Grinding poverty in a country in spite of their amazing natural and human resources, but at least they have economic equality! (And, of course, “free” health care.) Cuba is a case study illustrating the real cost of making economic egalitarianism “the heart and soul of liberalism.”
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/09/inequality-in-perspective
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- A World Turned Right Side Up
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Petronius| 12.9.11 @ 8:22AM
The only thing left unsaid is that egalitarianism is an easy sell. The childish sandbox sentiment it's grounded in makes its appeal effortless. Overgrown children naturally prefer living like that.
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 11:20AM
Give me a break - 2 year olds display greed, selfishness and "it's mine" long before they LEARN how to share. Unbridled capitalism preys on man's innate nature to be greedy and selfish. We are taught to share and play well with others. We don't out the gate.
The right-wing idea of a society is dog-eat-dog, which goes against all your mother's teachings, the Bible's teachings and Christian values and morals. How can you condone the 1% getting richer and fatter, while 40million children go hungry in this country? Shame on you all if you do.
Douglas Fletcher | 12.9.11 @ 11:25AM
A devastating analysis there, purpleguy. Just one problem -- all the socialists who lived haven't been able to come up with a prosperous, egalitarian society, and have killed tens of millions of people in the attempt. Got any more bright ideas?
jothepro| 12.9.11 @ 12:03PM
Hey Perp, You are a freaking idiot for posting such nonsense. So are you Brooks. Why don't you guys go to sites that agree with your immoral screeches...
junkyard infidel| 12.9.11 @ 1:33PM
purplegay sounds like he was raised by 2 daddy's and i'll bet brooks was 1 of them ! hey purplegay, brooks can't find his pet gerbil ! are you hiding it again ?
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:06PM
yeah, it's in you... twit
Rosie| 12.10.11 @ 1:37AM
Purpleguy, you rock. I can't think of a better way to say what you said up there.
To the rest of you, take a serious step outside your selfish minds and look at yourselves and the differences between what you preach and what you practice. And while you're at it maybe knock it off with the ignorant assumptions and derogatory remarks, homophobes.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:28PM
LOL. The guy who wants to get his greedy hands in my wallet to take my hard-earned money by the force of government tells me I'm greedy for not happily forking it over. LOL.
So, Purp, what is the moral justification to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than everyone else? And NO, YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
Keep your greedy hands and egalitarian fantasies out of my wallet, liberal.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 5:09PM
The moral justification is the rich have more disposable income you dolt. i.e. they CAN pay, you can't get blood from a stone.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 11:46PM
So you do not believe in property rights. You are a communist. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Why do you live in America? And why do liberals always insult people who ask them questions?
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:12PM
I don't want you money, it's not that much anyway. So keep it. Your Republicants are planning to tax you 2% more come Jan 1st anyway .. . b* to them, not me.
But remember, we all pass by the way of poverty one day or another (unless you are a 1%er), so remember this day and your selfish, self-centered attitude when it's your turn.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 11:51PM
But you advocate policies that would take my money to give to those who have not earned it. Why am I selfish for wanting to keep MY money that I EARNED by MY hard work and effort. That is not selfish. That is believing that I should be allowed to keep or give as I CHOOSE, not as you would FORCE me. That is why the good intentions of liberalism ALWAYS transform into totalitarianism. So again, why is it MORALLY justifiable to take from the "wealthy" at a higher rate than everyone else? Answer: because you are, at heart, a communist. From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
I say, keep your greedy, avaricious hands out of my wallet. You want to call me selfish? Bring it on. I could give a crap. You want a moral justification for stealing what you HAVE NOT EARNED. It's morally wrong, and you know it, which is why you are incapable of making a coherent argument for why it's morally right. BECAUSE IT'S WRONG.
W| 12.9.11 @ 4:23PM
How could 40 million children go hungry with Obama as president, and the Dems controlling the Senate? This is shocking. We need to raise taxes and have more government programs.
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:17PM
They haven't controlled the Senate but for 7 months in 2009. Nice charity for the children btw - Scrooge - oh and you know his story don't ya? SHAME, SHAME on your selfish attitude ... and at Christmastime too... Hide your head in SHAME.
Al Adab| 12.9.11 @ 5:28PM
Purp is being disingenuous as he refers to the 60 seat "control" of the Senate. Still, thanks be to G*d, we have been able to retard the flood of tyranny being perpetrated in the name of "hope and change". Why does the Left believe all good things come from government when the United States was created on just the opposite premise?
W| 12.9.11 @ 5:52PM
According to Co-President Michelle, the main problem is fat children and not hungry children.
Purp is always disingenuous and fact challenged.
Two days ago he posted a comment that Obama passed a law to allow women to sue for pay equality when that has been the law since 1964 and has always been the law in unionized employers. Obama's "law" dealt with a statute of limitations issue of when the time period starts to run, and I agree with the law.
But the Purp tried to misrepresent it. He is flexible an Clintonian with the facts.
W| 12.9.11 @ 5:31PM
Purp,
As usual you are fact-challenged. Your boys, the Dems, won the Senate in 2006. You had Congress for four years.
Why hasn't Obama used his personal millions to feed some of these starving children instead of the vacations in Hawaii, Spain, Martha's Vineyard, dates in NYC, and so on?
I asked you several days ago:
Why is is moral or ok for Obama to kill terrorrist, as you were bragging, but not moral or ok for Bush to order the enhanced interrogation, waterboarding to be precise, of three terrorrists? Even Panetta admitted the info obtained was responsible for locating Osama.
Why is it moral to kill the terrorrists but not to question them with enhanced techiques to obtain info that would save American lives?
How many of these starving 40 million have you personally fed?
TrueBlue| 12.9.11 @ 5:51PM
Those vacations have been on the public dime by the way, he does a tiny bit of business and has us pay for his time off. Not to mention the cost of jet fuel for him and his entourage. Or the constant parties, with live bands, he has at the White House for all his liberal buddies.
Also, don't forget two of those terrorists were still US citizens when they were killed because the Obama administration was too lazy to file the paperwork to have their citizenship revoked for openly assisting our enemies (treason and all that).
W| 12.9.11 @ 5:52PM
True
Don't confuse them with facts.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 11:52PM
Uh, the Dems control the Senate. Can't you count?
Ken| 12.9.11 @ 6:01PM
" Unbridled capitalism preys on man's innate nature to be greedy and selfish. "
Capitalism describes a system where people are free to exchange goods or services with each other in mutually beneficial ways. So do you prefer bridling "unbridled capitalism" on the liberty side or the mutual benefit side? Not to worry. You'll end up with both.
Greed and selfishness are human failings. "Unbridled Capialism" makes people compete by outbenefitting each other. Tthose who lack the energy or the imagination to compete prefer to coerce, so they join the government and redistribute it to themselves.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 11:26AM
Exactly,
plus they who call themselves conservative no longer conserve anything whatsoever: not fiscally, militarily, nothing. Next year or in '16 they will elect another non-conservative who mentions Reagan every chance he gets- just you watch.
It has become routine, you can set your watch by it.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.11 @ 11:30AM
"Got any more bright ideas?"
Doug, how about this: merely admit you are clueless without Reagan, and that you will remain so in running ersatz Reagans every four years.
But your pride will not allow you to even admit such a relatively small matter. Pride before a fall- and the GOP will fall.
The Knife| 12.9.11 @ 3:20PM
2012 will make 2010 look like the good old days for Democrats.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 4:41PM
Your response to Douglas Fletcher is a digression (in the form of an ad hominem attack) that in no way addresses his point.
oldfart| 12.9.11 @ 8:29AM
Liberals somehow cannot seem to grasp that people are not equal, which by definition is inequality. Life itself is unfair. Accept that and get over it. Is everyone on the planet born with the talent to create a great work of art, write music that solicits an emotional response (I am not talking about the response of “Thank God it is over”)? Is everyone a Prof. Steven Hawking? While Prof. Hawking does an excellent job of explaining what goes on in his brain in a most reasonable manner – to a significant portion of the population what he says is completely unintelligible. Does that make Prof. Hawking an ‘evil’ person out to suppress those that do not understand quantum mechanics? (For those that don’t get it that is an example of sarcasm.)
This same analysis applies to economics. As Dr. Ross points out some people have a natural gift in economics and creating and/or generating wealth. That person’s motivation may be due to a drive to excel professionally and personally or that drive could be driven by greed. Yes, an emotion such as excessive/compulsive greed is a bad thing because that person does not play fair.
All you so called 99% why don’t you protest because you can’t write good music, paint wonderful art, find the ‘god particle’ or expand our knowledge of how quantum mechanics influences the process of photosynthesis?
But – life is not fair, there are greedy, evil people out that who will walk all over other people in an instant and have no regrets about the destruction that is left in their path. So get over it – nothing from all the laws of the land, all the protests against whoever, all the preaching from the bully pulpit will change that. There are also lazy people out there who don’t want to work but want a suckle at the breast of the ‘mommy state’ for the rest of their lives.
Economic equality is a myth just like equality for all talents. Go out, find your talent and do it to the best of your ability. Be happy in your own skin.
PolishKnight| 12.9.11 @ 9:55AM
Oldfart, in my dealings with liberals it was quickly revealed that they believe in government cronyism, not equality. This is hitting them hard as drudge featured a link to an NYT blog article about Obama considering dumping working class whites altogether. Nobody has murdered more peasants than socialists and the left.
oldfart| 12.9.11 @ 10:03AM
I saw that - he no longer needs the working class vote - he has all the dead people in Chicago, New York and New England.
oldfart| 12.9.11 @ 10:06AM
Oh - and don't forget the zombie vote in California.
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:05PM
"Liberals somehow cannot seem to grasp that people are not equal, which by definition is inequality." - Come again? Seems like "All men are created equal ..." is written in some obscure, unimportant document like THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Are you serious?
No one is talking about equal talents - of course people are different. But they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. But that isn't the same as income inequality.
Income inequality is not created by the survival of the fittest, or best able to make a living.
TrueBlue| 12.9.11 @ 5:58PM
It would seem pretty logical to make the connection between "best able to make a living" and "Income inequality." After all, if you're one of those best able to make a living, shouldn't you be making more than someone who is less suited to do so?
Why should the guy flipping burgers in a fast food joint and has no motivation to better himself be making as much as the CEO that worked his way up from a low income household through self-motivation and persistence?
Except in a few cases (ironically it's generally in the case of Union employees and liberal businesses making deals with politicians for political donations, etc) the people at the top of large companies got there by working hard and getting promoted up the line. That's why you don't generally see 20 and 30 yr-olds in CEO spots in boardrooms.
oldfart| 12.9.11 @ 6:27PM
Thank you making my point since I was talking the entire time about abilities no creation. If you had read the entire post you would have understood that.
Again thank you for backing up what I had to say. Have a good day.
al222| 12.9.11 @ 9:16AM
radical egalitarianism is impossible to achieve for one simple reason: who enforces it? the answer to that question has been the same everywhere this bankrupt ideology has been attempted: a "class" of people who invariably attain far more privilege and wealth for performing the task of making sure everyone else is equally miserable.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:30PM
THIS.
Fredx| 12.9.11 @ 9:38AM
That's enough to make a poor liberal's head explode. I am poor, but poor in America means near-rich in other countries. Sure, I envy rich people sometimes. I know that some of them inherited it or married it. Some were just in the right place at the right time. I know that many don't really deserve it (hello Tracy Jordan). But it's not their fault I'm not rich. It's just possible that some people are (gasp!) smarter than me, more talented than me (that's not saying much), more ambitious than me, less lazy than me, and more willing to make the sacrifices that success demands. What right do I have to deny them the fruits of their labors? I wish I were rich, too, but I had a little something to do with my own situation, and demanding that someone share their wealth with me in exchange for my whining would be the height of childishness, petulance and selfishness. I don't have much money, but there's still a little dignity left in the bank.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.9.11 @ 9:40AM
Yes. Equality IS attainable. (As long as you don't count the Pigs that are More Equal than the others) Mao did it. Everybody had the same, right down to their Shirt, Pants, and Hat. Everybody had the same Bicycle. And they all worked for NOTHING. Even in Today's China, you can find that Mao Type Equality. ONE CHILD. No Exceptions.
Lenin and Stalin had it. For the most part. All the people had a place to live. All the people had a Job. All the Ukrainians had to Starve.
In Pol Pot's Cambodia, everybody had the same chance to be shot in the head. Does it get any Fairer than that?
This can all be over, come November 2012. Obama will not be the first Demigod to be taken down. When he's gone. When the Mental Disorder, that is Progressivism/Liberalism/Socialism/Communism/Marxism, has been swept out of our Body Politic, we can become AMERICA, once again.
But, Obama must GO. And I don't care how. It can be on a Helicopter. It can be on a Caisson. I don't care. As long as he's gone. I want my Country back, for my Children, and their Children. And I want this Self Immolation of America, that's being perpetrated by this Man, to end. He is tearing this Country apart, and he's doing it ON PURPOSE.
richard ryan| 12.9.11 @ 10:53AM
From Candidate, to popular president, to not so popular, to abysmally unpopular. Each time he descends further, he reveals a bit more about his true values and beliefs. Now that he's struggling, and with all the layers of fake b__s__ removed we are left with the Core Obama. A whining, America-hating, not-so-intelligent Marxist who has no leadership ability and even less character.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:31PM
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Al Adab| 12.9.11 @ 10:31AM
The Left considers material well being as the ne plus ultra standard. What they refuse to admit is that it is preferable to be free even if perhaps less well off than to be a well fed, well cared for slave on the plantation. Individuals, as opposed to economic classes, prefer to take their chances in business or in life rather than sell their birthright for government pottage.
The two sides of the debate, the two world views: Materialism v. Liberty, are today so far apart as to appear irreconcilable. Either one or the other must prevail in our nation if it is to survive as, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:40PM
Ah, but to a liberal being free means responsibility, which is something the deprived and disenfranchised and the "real working man" supposedly can't do on their own. So they must be helped. With affirmative action and hiring quotas and forced union dues. With government programs and food stamps and subsidies and research grants and...ad infinitum. All paid out of my wallet with money I earned by working by butt off with no help from anybody. How is that FAIR, liberals? They can take fair, and social justice, and equality and egalitarianism and shove it where the sun don't shine because all those euphemisms really mean the same thing: acquisitiveness and envy. They want my money because they can't or won't earn it themselves and rather than ask me nicely to donate to charities, they want to point the IRS gun and my head and MAKE me give until it hurts, until there is no more, until I'm as poor as they are, the golden goose is dead, the American Constitution is dead and we all live under Maoist principles. Anything less and liberals will never be satisfied.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 10:39AM
A useless article that ignores the rock solid evidence that more equal societies have much better productivity, wellbeing and cohesion, not to mention better health and lower crime, and also ignores the heavily regressive taxation in respect of areas such as carried interest, which greatly exacerbate inequality.
As always, I ask if there is a point in more wealth owned by fewer people where even the most sycophantic Amspec reader would call foul.
Indiana Alex| 12.9.11 @ 10:58AM
Jackass,
Useless response that sites "rock solid evidence" about "more equal societies".
Are you referencing Cuba, or by more equal societies are you suggesting Amazon pigmy tribes where most are right around equal height.
I find it hard to beleive there would be a reasonable study, much less "rock solid evidence" than attempted to measure all aspects of a society based only on a subjective concept, except possibly in the area of bong smoke theory.
There are many different measures upon which one can focus when attempting to explain an economy's abiliy to generate wealth. There aren't any examples in history of a focus on wealth distribution that has led to prosperity for anyone but the distributors.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 4:03PM
By more equal societies I mean countries such as Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, France and so on . It's indisputable that they they succeed in many measures better than us, including social mobility, which I attempted to educate you about but I assume you prefer to remain ignorant.
richard ryan| 12.9.11 @ 11:01AM
No, I will not cry foul based on an individual's attainment of wealth. You see, our standard of living is the highest in the world precisely because we do not limit wealth and opportunity. If I own a business and pull in 100 million per year, why not 200 million? I decide to GROW my business. I buy raw materials and hire people to build another factory. I'm creating MORE jobs Jack..
Now, if you want to cry foul on someone, target the non-productive fools at Goldman and the other investment banks who lined Obama's pockets and then got their money back and then some. To the tune of billions.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 4:25PM
Well sure - I want the investment bankers taxed more on carried interest, as they are currently in effect evading tax the rest of us have to pay on income.
OK - let's try this and see if you have a breaking point. At present, 1% of our population has about 4o% of financial wealth and the top 20% have 84%. The bottom 20% has just 0.1%.
With trends only increasing inequality, would you be happy to see the top 20% going to:
90%
95%
99%
And the top 1% going to:
45%
50%
55%
Remember: this kind of inequality was a root cause of the Great Depression.
And as for your quint factories and jobs - that ain't happening much here now – you had noticed China etc? The wealth merchants here are creaming off the cash and living fat.
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:33PM
Exactly - As the middle class goes, so goes the country. It is so obvious - as our middle class grew, we became the most powerful country in history. Now you can see the middle class rising in China and India, and guess what? They are rising in economic, social and military power right along with the middle class.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 6:08PM
There's a good Krugman column today about Romney and Bain Capital that shows how he was essentially a net job destroyer during his business years. As Krugman says:
'The truth is that what’s good for the 1 percent, or even better the 0.1 percent, isn’t necessarily good for the rest of America — and Mr. Romney’s career illustrates that point perfectly.'
People here who think the wealthy are only out to create jobs and opportunity are deluded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12.....os.html?hp
richard ryan| 12.9.11 @ 6:40PM
I don't want to see money "going to" anyone in particular, if it is coming from the federal government. Wealth used to be EARNED in this country. You are correct, factories are not popping up in this country. Do you realize how many regulatory obstacles the government creates for manufacturing in this country? And now the cost of business in jacked up even more thanks to Obamacare. Unions need to go away. If you want to elevate the middle class and help them create their own wealth, get rid of union pigs and allow companies to offer pay based on profit sharing. Unlimited income, unlimited wealth. Americans can be the most productive people in the world, they just need incentive.
Al Adab| 12.9.11 @ 11:07AM
Jack:
Too much time in the arctic? Again, you are using a materialist standard to measure the freedom of individuals. Wrong yardstick.
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:34PM
Freedom, what freedom? That's a myth.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:42PM
Define "equal." It's like fair. What does it MEAN?
Purpleguy| 12.9.11 @ 5:34PM
You define it - you have all the answers.
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 11:57PM
Deflecting again, I see. Why can't liberals ever answer simple questions? What IS your problem? Can't you back up what you believe in? I can't define equal and fair because I don't believe there is any such thing. Liberals are the ones who want fairness. I'm simply asking for the measuring yardstick. Why is that so hard for you? You're the one who wants equality, so tell me what that is. What is fairness? It's not up to me to define your belief system. That's your job. The fact that you can't define your beliefs doesn't surprise me at all, though. It's typical.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 4:51PM
Are you sure that the causality doesn't run in the other direction? Maybe the causality is that societies that have much better productivity, wellbeing and cohesion have less inequality. (BTW, not sure what is meant by "cohesion" in your statement.)
In fact, neither the fact or direction of causality have been demonstrated. It's quite possible, as it often is, that neither is causal but that there is some other cause for both correlated conditions. In this case, possibly some cultural characteristic.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 5:51PM
Cohesion is about levels of trust in society. These issues are studied by the notable academic Robert Putnam (see his 'Bowling Alone') and Brits who recently published 'The Spirit Level', in which they show from many peer reviewed studies that more equal societies have better outcomes across social groups. Here's an essay of theirs:
http://www.newstatesman.com/so.....alth-essay
'The weight of the evidence, and its continued rapid accumulation, make the important link between income inequality and social dysfunction inescapable.'
VonMisesJr| 12.9.11 @ 10:49AM
Liberal elitist politicians (including Boehner) didn't believe in equality when using inside information to profit in the stock market during TARP and other key legislation. John Kerry actually never had a blind trust and made $1M in evil profits: http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....-promised/
Clinton made $50K a month in consulting fees for MF Global while Corzine had $1.2B "gone missing." Looks like Soros may have been beneficiary of the theft: http://online.wsj.com/article/.....16704.html
Are these the people Obama was referring to when he asked "at what point have people made enough money?"
I guess some animals (pigs) are more equal than others."
Klaus Hlousek| 12.9.11 @ 11:02AM
Mr. Jack London:
You are truly brain dead.
I came from East Germany and it was no paradise. America is as close to paradise as I can imagine.
Why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea to get your 'equality'?
The Soviet Union was so successful. I am sure you are missing the USSR.
Al Adab| 12.9.11 @ 11:09AM
Danke, Klaus:
Why is it always so clear that immigrants understand the value of freedom more than Americans do? Sad commentary on education in this most exceptional nation.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 4:50PM
Try:
Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Japan, Switzerland.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 4:57PM
Naming countries proves nothing. Each one has it's own particular history and situation. If you're referring to social welfare policies, many of the countries named are rethinking or have already started reversing or moderating there former policies.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 5:20PM
Huh? These countries have demonstrably better equality of opportunity and outcomes than the US. You just prefer not to mention them.
George Anderson| 12.9.11 @ 11:42AM
I am an independent and disagree with the premis of this article. Neither the "left" nor Marx promoted economic equality. What the left wants, in my opinion, is equality of opportunity. The pendulum between capital and labor has swung once again too far toward capital. Millions are out of work, losing their savings and homes. Three decades of government favoritism toward capital is part of the reason. The government has the responsibility to correct this through whatever policy mechanisms are available. But now, the government appears to be wholly controlled by capital. Hopelessness is spreading throughout the population minus the wealthy. Middle-classers are dropping into the poor or near poor category. Marx predicted what the result of this trend must be.
Indiana Alex| 12.9.11 @ 11:59AM
The question to you would be, how are you to promote labor without capital?
Job creation is dependent on captial formation, and we have two problems with captial formation right now.
The first is the misdirection of captial, as the government attempts to stimulate job creation in "favored" industries, and is swinging blindly where there is no pinata.
The second speaks to the point you seem to be trying to make. There is no way to calculate a return on investment in the current climate, as there is no way to know what the tax premium will be even out 13 months from now.
It could be anywhere from what it is now, to much higher depending on:
1) Marginal Rates (currently scheduled to go up by law 01/01/2013, also see dividends and capital gains)
2) The fate of Obamacare (surtaxes included kick in after 2012)
3) The enthusiasm of Dems to raise taxes even more (only pass the payroll tax cut with increases that could push some tax premiums above 50%)
You see, there is already an attempt to punish captial, and we are seeing the results of such a plan.
Ron| 12.9.11 @ 12:57PM
No where has forced equality worked. Period. Note the fails, and please do not pull out how the countries listed below did not promote true equality...they were sorry attempts:
USSR
Czechoslovakia
Albania
Yugoslavia
Poland
East Germany
North Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
The Congo
South Africa
Rhodesia (sorry Zimbabwe)
And that is just from my lifetime that jump out at me...Most of the countries behind the Iron Curtain of the cold war were abject failures.
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 1:29PM
Ron,
And don't forget the non-government attempts. Notice our schools. The unions are shrinking in the private sector and where they are most prevalent - the auto makers, and airlines, e.g. - the companies tend to go bankrupt.
It's no surprise that the only area of union growth is in government.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 4:28PM
Try:
Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Japan, Switzerland.
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 7:42PM
Jack London,
There is no forced equality in any of your examples. The governments are all Social Democrat. In Norway the incomes of everyone is published each year. The President of Statoil definitely makes more than the local pub owner.
My father is a refugee from Czechoslovakia. His family was wealthy and had all their property confiscated. I visited in '73 - it was a pit. There were currency controls, soviet troops everywhere, and the roads looked as if they had been bombed. The dollar was officially 5 Krona and 20 on the black market (which you didn't want to risk). I went back in '2009 and the story was quite different.
I've lived in Germany, France and England, worked in Australia and Norway, and visited the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. Your list is caca.
You'd have done better had you said Italy and Greece. A friend has a condo in Thessaloniki. He pays multiples of the taxes his neighbor pays for the identical unit next to him because he is wealthier. It's really working out well for them.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 1:29PM
You Conservatives don't get it, I as a liberal don't hate people for making lots of money, but I do HATE people making oversized personal profits on the backs of the 'working' people. Here is an example, Bill Gates the richest man in the world and loved by all INCLUDING Liberals, Why? Well sure his belief in Philanthropic endeavors and using some of his vast wealth to help the poor and less fortunate are a feather in his cap for sure but it goes beyond that. The term 'Microsoft Millionaire' comes to mind, not only is Bill a Billionaire but so is Ballmer and a bunch others, beyond that extreme there are literally 1,000's of Microsoft millionaires, just regular folk, good coders and such who have at LEAST a million banked from working there. I dare say that if you work at MS for 20 years and are NOT a millionaire, your doing it wrong. Contrast that with MOST Businesses where the Owner or Senior management(Job Creator's) are the ONLY one's making any REAL money or ever will...
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 1:31PM
Kingofthenet,
Like Apple? Compare Jobs to Wozniak!
idalily| 12.9.11 @ 1:44PM
Define "oversized." Define working people. Define REAL money.
Indiana Alex| 12.9.11 @ 1:48PM
The concept of Microsoft Millionaires is not based on simply "being a good coder". It is based on increases in stock price from stock option compensation. The reason you don't hear of Microsoft Millionaires anymore is the stock price hasn't moved much in the past five years or so. Those that got in at the beginning, yes, they did very well.
Indiana Alex| 12.9.11 @ 2:06PM
This is probably by accident, but it speaks very well to who some of these damn "millionaires" are. They probably had income between 100k-150k, and ended up in the right place at the right time, and for one or two years had income in excess of a million.
You see the crowd that makes over a million dollars is very fluid. Lindsay Lohan used to be in there.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 1:47PM
Rethug Convention Song:
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you
Then the left one will
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 1:58PM
Kingofthenet,
That was beautiful.
The poor bastard who works in the mine... too poor to die. He sound like a natural Democrat.
If you don't get out of his way he'll kill you. Yep... a natural Democrat.
William L. Gensert| 12.9.11 @ 2:01PM
The fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives is that the former fights for equality of opportunity and the latter fights for equality of results. Conservatism is about creating wealth, whereas, progressivism is about redistributing wealth, trickle down prosperity versus trickle up poverty.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 4:49PM
What nonsense. Conservatives fight for the preservation and increase of inequality and do everything there can to stifle social mobility and equality of opportunity. There's no other explanation for the policies you espouse that consistently promote the concentration of wealth in fewer hands.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 5:08PM
Do you really believe that conservatives would fight for preservation and increase of inequality if it meant that everyone would become poorer, including the wealthy? If not, then preservation and increase of inequality, and the stifling of social mobility and equality of opportunity is not actual what they're fighting for.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 5:18PM
You didn't read what I said - I said you fight for increasing the wealth of the wealthy. Indisputably the wealthiest have taken more of the wealth since the 1980s and indisputably it is your policies that made it possible.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 5:40PM
My policies? My only political or governmental involvement has been to vote. If you mean as one of the wealthy, I've never made more than $60K per year (fairly recently, when that wasn't a very high income), and I am currently unemployed.
I did read what you said - you said that conservatives fight for "the preservation and increase of inequality" - that's not the same thing as fighting for increasing wealth, whether you are able to understand the difference or not.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 5:54PM
You didn't link the two. By making it possible for the wealthiest to accumulate more wealth as a proportion of the pie, you are in essence fighting for the preservation and increase of inequality.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 6:05PM
You didn't just link the two, you equated them - that's my objection, and you do it again in your response.
Making it possible for the wealthiest to accumulate more wealth is not the same as making it possible for them to accumulate more wealth as a proportion of the pie. The wealth of the wealthiest has increased throughout US history - sometimes their share of total wealth has increased and sometimes it hasn't.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 6:12PM
No - I originally said 'policies you espouse that consistently promote the concentration of wealth in fewer hands'. That's clear and obvious.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 2:07PM
Working people just want a fair chance, to move up within a company or at least job stability and benefits. People who want the former usually try and get into management, the latter unions. My Dad who was a Mechanical Engineer knew a fellow Engineer who had a GREAT outlook on work and pay. My dad said this guy was the BEST Engineer you ever saw...IF you paid him right for those talents, otherwise he was Average.In Engineering it's usually Feast or Famine, one day your working at Exxon getting HUGE Bucks next your trying to get a job laying out some small factory assembly line. Anyway this guy could do say six drawings a day if you paid him as a 'Master' Engineer, and they would be PERFECT. If you paid him as a 'Journeymen' he might do four, and if you paid him as an 'Apprentice 'you would get two. Nothing wrong with that...
Thom| 12.9.11 @ 2:43PM
The greatest single determinate of inequality is Free Will and that is essential to any concept of liberty or the pursuit of and being “human” and not a drone as is so often displayed by the various collectives of grievance groups preaching “equality”. The phrase, “misery loves company” comes to mind from my childhood. The person that taught me that phrase practiced it their entire life.
My extended family roots live in Appalachia and have for generations. The dominate income producing means in Appalachia are mineral rights exploration (aka mining, logging, fossil fuel extraction (natural gas) etc all things people on the Left love to hate) and subsistence farming. Outside of that you either work for the “man” or are the “man”. Appalachia is not a place one lives if you want to become wealthy in “income” terms. It is a choice just like all the rest of choices in life that impacts the outcome.
My niece recently wrote me an e-mail on a newer PC than I have using an Internet connection run to the middle of nowhere Appalachia that she, her three kids and husband were having to make it on $1683 dollars a month. I didn’t have to ask what the source of the “income” was and she is a full time stay at home (a trailer) mom and her husband is a full time looking for steady work “worker” to use Marx’s term. Their home is located on her parent’s farm where her mother hasn’t worked in 40 years, doesn’t have a driver’s license and the father has nothing but his retirement pay from the Air Force and both receive SS now. Ironically the house the parents live in was built by them using wood from their property they milled with the saw mill he has on his property and labor he and his children provided that you won’t find in an IRS database of their “income”.
My niece has a “free” Public Education, some “mostly free” community college courses for which she has never held a job, “free” Healthcare, “free” Food, etc. Her children have two “daddies” but she has had only one marriage. She has no concept of the income level I generate after 40 years in the “business” and can’t relate to the practice of paying garbage truck drivers $100,000 a year as they do in Gotham. Between where she lives and limited wealth producing enterprises you find in Appalachia as a whole, she will never ever see anything above government defined “poverty” based on the definition of what constitutes “income” yet the power to change all this is wholly within her God given means to do just as I did over 40 years ago. Poverty for the overwhelming bulk of able bodied persons in this country is a “choice” they make. Rewarding the “poor” choices other people make on the scale this country does makes the unpleasant events of the 1860s a true tragedy in scope and application given the most often stated reason for the grand bloodletting that took place. If robbing one person’s “means” to benefit another person’s choices in life isn’t slavery we owe an apology to all those that perished for their vain attempt to live up to the lofty words in the Declaration of Independence. There is no greater insult to the Founding principles of this Republic than to relieve an individual of the responsibilities that go hand and hand with the Liberty to pursue that which their “means” can provide to the fullest extent possible. A slave is a slave regardless of how they became one. All forms of collectivism seek to destroy Free Will and bring about a common “misery” to the masses.
I wish everyone “happiness” in whatever productive form that takes for them but the shrinking pool of those willing to get up every day and work at productive enterprises for 4-5 decades of their life is not going to tolerate being the cash cows for a permanent and growing mass of sloths that feel entitled to the fruits and labors of others into perpetuity. An observant person, few as they may be today knows that the rock you pick up today and throw at the “rich” will eventually hit you in the back of the head thrown by the guy right behind you in “life” hence when you abandon common sense principles of good governance all you have left is MOB rule.
Communism “light” or Liberalism in all its forms will bring wide scale misery and real poverty to most if enough people don’t embrace our Founding principles…. again.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 3:13PM
One thing you 'Job Creators' HAVE to understand is people have NEEDS, and if it isn't supplied by a Job, it is has to be supplied by Govt. You don't pay your workers Healthcare, what do you expect them to do? Not get Sick? Seriously just answer THAT one question. You don't pay them a wage that will pay for rent, food, clothing and some disposable money, what do you expect them to do? What about retirement, do you offer a retirement plan? What do you expect them to go away and die the second they retire? If not you are just shifting costs to the taxpayers...You Leeches, Conservatives should be outraged! The 99%
Thom| 12.9.11 @ 3:20PM
Jobs are created when people with skills have something of value to offer someone looking for that skill. Fewer people are looking for people with "skills" because government takes over half GDP and government has raised the cost of being an employee to such a level that many "jobs" you are so fond of have less value than what it cost to hire some one for. So what you call "needs" shrinks. Thieves have "needs" too but for the most part we throw thieves in jail because we don't "need" thieves. Democrats need "thieves" however.
Al Adab| 12.9.11 @ 4:13PM
King:
Thank you for making plain and clear the vast chasm between free people and slaves. "People have needs, and if it isn't supplied by a job, it has to be supplied by Govt." That falacy seperates us into two camps. Better to be free, even if hungry or less well off materially, than to be well fed and cared for on the plantation. Nothing any of us say or do can bridge that canyon.
W| 12.9.11 @ 4:28PM
King,
Why don't your and Purple (if you two are different persons) morrtgage your homes, borrow to the hilt from friends and family, start a a business, maybe a restaurant or pizza shop, and they pay your workers top dollar, give them health insurance (different than healthcare), pension plans, vacations, sick pay, day care, and whatever else you want?
Lead by example.Show us the way how you can do this and stay in business.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 5:28PM
I think that what you should understand is the difference between needs and wants, and that no society can everything people might want.
Do people need an adequate diet? Yes. Do they need the same diet that people with more money have? No, but they probably want it.
Do people need basic healthcare? Yes. Do they need all of the healthcare that wealthier people can afford? No, but it seems many consider that not only a need but a right. In fact, there isn't enough money in the economy to pay for everyone to have all of the advanced medical care modern science has created.
Do all basic needs of the jobless HAVE to be supplied by government? No, and all of their wants cannot be. Needs could also be provided by extended family and by private charity (and were, through most of human history), but charity would imply that these needs are not rights, which I suspect you would find unacceptable.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 5:34PM
I would have no problem with that if we were doing so good, but we aren't nor has ANY Country in History. What you want to go back to is the 'Robber Baron' days, you want Alm Houses for the poor, people killing rats for food. I am willing to give some so that DOESN'T happen again.
RonRonDoRon| 12.9.11 @ 5:56PM
You say we're not doing so good. You also say that neither has any country in history. Maybe that last fact should be a clue.
No, I don't want to "go back" to anything, and past societal conditions aren't necessarily relevant. Conditions were different, attitudes were different, resources were different, and aggregate wealth was vastly different.
If you are willing to give some to help the poor, you can give it to them through private charity - more help will actually get to the poor than if your giving is routed through a welfare bureaucracy.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not opposed to basic needs being supplied through government. We have the economic resources for that, and social fragmentation makes it necessary. But the gap in wealth and income between wealthy and poor doesn't tell us anything about whether basic needs are being provided or not.
Jack London| 12.9.11 @ 6:27PM
'But the gap in wealth and income between wealthy and poor doesn't tell us anything about whether basic needs are being provided or not.'
Oh but it does if by basic needs you include things like health and wellbeing. Go read 'The Spirit Level' book I cited above.
idalily| 12.10.11 @ 12:38AM
It is not the job creator's responsibility to provide for your needs. That's YOUR job. It's not up to anyone else to provide for your healthcare, your food, your rent, your clothing, your disposable income or anything else. These are YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. A job creator is simply someone with a need who is willing to trade money for the labor to fulfill that need. How is your getting sick something I should be FORCED to pay for? I don't owe you anything. The world doesn't owe you anything. Time to put on the big boy pants and be responsible for yourself. I have enough to do being responsible for me and mine. I don't owe you the time of day. Grow up, fund your own retirement, healthcare, and other needs and keep your greedy, avaricious hands out of my wallet.
Storagesteve| 12.9.11 @ 3:24PM
What I don't understand is how can the democrats say they are for the working class and poor and against the greedy wall street bankers yet receive a large portion on their donations from said bankers. Lets think about this , the bankers are greedy so they wouldn't give money to the democrats unless they were getting more in return. Now the democrats need the donations so they pass money to the bankers through stimulus (solyndra, GE etc..). So instead of helping the middle class they help the bankers. Something doesn't add up. Whose greedy? Seems like they both are because they want money they aren't earning through production. And this is the workers party?
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 4:56PM
Republican Economics at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIlCSBfksM
W| 12.9.11 @ 4:59PM
King.
Instead of playing around You Tube, go start a business and hire some "working people."
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 5:17PM
I won't do it if I can't at least pay them decent. I work for myself but that isn't an option for all.
W| 12.9.11 @ 5:55PM
So instead of keeping all the obscene profits yourself hire someone and share the wealth, as commanded by the propher Obama.
What is a decent pay?
The Bruce| 12.9.11 @ 6:03PM
As the the author rightly pointed out, economic equality is a red herring. If you level the playing field economically to, let's say, everyone earns $100K per year, human beings will simple find new ways to envy and/or demonize others (their looks, athletic ability, intelligence, their girlfriend, etc, etc).
It reminds me of a line out of "Enemy at the Gates." A (very-pro) Soviet political officer, right before sacrificing himself, comes to the realization that the very idea of "equality" and Communism is a pure farce.
Human beings always find something to envy and, therefore, will always be jealous of others.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 7:07PM
Wealth inequality is a symptom not a root cause of the problems with Modern Capitalism. I think in the last 30 years, starting in the 'greed is good 80's' , companies moved away from long term planning and stability to short term 'gimmicks' to boost stock price. When a CEO can come in, get a bunch of Stock Options, do crazy cutting that undermines the long term prospects of a company, for short term profits, sell the stock they got for a song, and get just before a collapse, that is sending the wrong message.
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 7:49PM
Kingofthenet,
Mark Zuckerberg!
Really the people who want his product are to blame, don't you think? If he'd just started a dating site at Harvard, he'd be poorer than those no-names who keep suing him for a piece of the action. It's a shame he actually had an idea that so many people wanted embrace.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 8:53PM
I am talking about the Jack Walsh types, Tyco, Enron Etc. When you are CEO, you answer to investors #1 as you should but when those investors and your own personal gain override what is good for the compant 10 yrs down the line, I think that's wrong.
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 10:48PM
Kingofthenet,
It's Jack WELCH, who grew the company (GE) a hundred fold, took his piece and then left Jeffrey Imelt to become one of the largest crony capitalists and advisor to Obama. Who did what for that company?
idalily| 12.10.11 @ 12:43AM
Define wealth inequality. What does that MEAN? Liberals throw around these lofty sounding terms like "fairness" and "equality" and "social justice" yet when you ask what they mean by those terms, they can't define them except with even more lofty hyperbole. What IS wealth inequality? If I have more than you, we are unequal. So? I have what I have because I EARNED it. By working my ass off. You could do the same. So go and do it and stay out of my wallet. I don't owe you anything. The world doesn't owe you anything. Stock brokers don't owe you anything. Grow up and go to work like the rest of us. Life's tough. Suck it up.
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 10:58PM
Conservatives Libertarians are conflicted on one hand they want an Ayn Rand style 'Dystopia' to steal from and exploit the weak citizens on the other they prefer to get Govt. contracts and than rip it off with malfeasance, writing the laws to make it OK. They really want to be the Illuminati, but not to rule, it's just a means to an end...Greed is Good
John Navratil| 12.9.11 @ 11:04PM
Kingofthenet,
There isn't a Conservative who will argue for crony-capitalism. That is a product of an unholy alliance between rent-seekers and law makers. It's what we decry. Don't you get that?
Kingofthenet| 12.9.11 @ 11:02PM
On a Related note:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that chemicals from "fracking," a controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground, have polluted groundwater in Wyoming.
The findings represent the first time in the heated debate over fracking that the agency has drawn such a connection, which has long been claimed by environmental activists.
In a statement released on Thursday, the EPA said a study had found that groundwater in an aquifer around Pavillion, Wyoming, contained "compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing."
John Navratil| 12.10.11 @ 8:47AM
Kingofthenet,
This report is premature at least. First, let me say that it is quite possible for any well (water wells, included), "fracked" or not, to pollute ground water. The problem is when the casing does not provide a seal between one layer and another and has nothing to do with whether or not a layer is "fracked".
These reports claim "chemicals associated with fracking" have turned up in ground water. Elsewhere, it is reported that hydrocarbons are the pollutants. Hydrocarbons can and do occur naturally in groundwater and the source of the chemicals has not been identified.
This EPA report is in Draft stage, it has not been peer reviewed. This is the point at which the report is presented to the community for review. The EPA certainly is not dispassionate on this point, but their's is the only view contained in the report at this time.
Fracking has been going on for since the 1940's and over a million wells have been "fracked". It's one of the main technologies your favorite company, Halliburton, was built on.
So pop that cork and enjoy your champagne. You may need to wait a while if you don't.
Randy Vaught| 12.14.11 @ 2:31AM
Purpleguy...
what a sad excuse for a human being you are.
Ignorant, and content to remain so. very sad.
Jessica | 12.14.11 @ 1:46PM
Cuba is one of the left's favorite countries. Almost everyone in Cuba receives the same income: $15 a month. Grinding poverty in a country in spite of their amazing natural and human resources, but at least they have economic equality! (And, of course, "free" health care.) Cuba is a case study illustrating the real cost of making economic egalitarianism "the heart and soul of liberalism."
- Cuba's lack of success isnt because they give everyone the same wage, but because the western world (US and Europe) have placed embargo's on them, effectively shutting out 2/3 of the worlds economy from doing business with Cuba.
Any nation would die under those realities, capitalist/communist/socialist...wouldnt matter.
It's ironic, considering your entire piece was about "equal access to opportunity" not outcome...
we have fixed the outcome, but blocking access to opportunity for Cuba to succeed.
Just like most people in america (and around the world) who are born into poverty are effectively BLOCKED from access to opportunity. yes, individual cases of success escape (as is the case in Cuba as well)...but by and large, it stifles the ability to succeed.
I will agree, there are SOME liberals who focus on OUTCOME in regards to equality, but most are talking about access to OPPORTUNITY just like you pretend to be. Would you say a poor child of color born in an american ghetto, has the same ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY as a rich white kid born in the suburbs?
If you are implying thats true, you're a bald face liar.
We are punishing children, for the failures of their parents by not giving them the best education our collective dollars can buy.
But somehow, it's ok to buy the best damn military our collective dollars can buy, when the only way we've used our military in the last 50 years...was to continue our colonialist ways, that only benefit the top 1%...
Finally, what most of us Liberals are upset about is the huge gap between CEO pay and general worker pay. No one is saying the CEO should make the same as the uneducated labor workers. What we are saying, there is not enough "hard work and sacrifice" that warrants that CEO earning 200 x what that uneducated labor worker makes.
I dont mind rewarding hard work, sacrifice and risk taking. But isnt there a possibility that there's such a thing as TOO MUCH? A CEO did not make a company successful all by himself, why should he be the only one rewarded? Why shouldnt some of the success trickle down to the average workers, busting their butts day in and day out?
As someone who works for a publically traded company, I can see definitely how that aspect has a negative bearing on our business. Our focus isnt on having a successful, profitable company...it's on ensuring the shareholders are happy with their returns, and trust me...they are never happy.
In a down economy, we turn record profits each quarter...but I can tell you, it comes at a cost. We cut corners, we dont pay suppliers on time...and our corp is starting not to pay it's employees on time...all so the shareholders can THINK we are doing better every quarter. Being good, successful...isnt enough, we always have to be better.
And realistically, thats impossible.
How do the shareholders come before the very people who do the actual work, and make the company an actual success?
All because they put some of their wealth on the line?
Thats insane...and you can see all around us the results of the insanity, because we've been mired in it since the Reagan years.
thouhts| 12.14.11 @ 2:00PM
When reading this I think about history, and find it funny how we forget so fast. Socialism, and communism, have never been allowed to work there has always been outside factors, determined to bring it down. We act like capitalism is the best answer because we use government mandates to keep it going, and we keep the negative affects behind the scenes. There is a major flaw with capitalism that has not been addressed. The system is based on consumption, but we have limited resources, and growing population. We've gotten away with it for years cause we just took from other countries, but now thoes countries want to be like us and we are being forced to see the big picture.
Side not the biggest socialist institution is the united states military. If your so against socialism dismantle them.
Felix Sinedeus| 12.14.11 @ 11:11PM
^^ THIS! ^^
Excellent post. Thank you.
Felix Sinedeus| 12.14.11 @ 2:06PM
Dr. Ross says, "Conservatives want equality of opportunity, liberals want equality of outcomes."
Well, that's convenient framing. but hardly accurate. As a liberal/progressive I can tell you I have no interest in seeing everyone guaranteed the same income and level of wealth. I recognize that doing so would be unfair to those willing and able to work harder. Also, any system built on the premise of complete economic equality would fail to harness the power of the market to create wealth for everyone. I also recognize that the my vision for America *requires* the presence of those who make more money, as they are a source of taxes to pay for the programs that will improve our society as a whole. I find that the liberals/progressives I talk to have a similar view on the infeasibility of 100% economic equality. So, the author is simply wrong in his characterization. And, I am left to wonder if he has actually *met* one of these "liberals" of which he speaks.
I believe most progressives simply want to see a basic minimum maintained for quality of life among the poor. And, we don't think it too much to ask that the floor, that minimum, increase over time with the increase of wealth of the country as a whole. That's why the Occupy protesters object to the wealthy getting wealthier. Because the benefits of increased wealth are going only to those at the top, with nothing "trickling down" to the rest of Americans. Progressives don't object simply to people making money, or some people making more money than others, or people making more than they did yesterday. In fact, we'd accept all of those things, so long as they were true for ALL Americans. After all, we're all in this together and, contrary to the scare tactics employed on the right, the poor work hard to make this country a better place, too. They should share in the benefits that hard work produces. Instead, we see those benefits accumulating at the top, and being used to buy our government and maintain the status quo.
Also, Dr. Ross is arguing against a stereotype, a characature of "liberals". This much should be obvious by his statement that "Cuba is one of the left's favorite countries." What a silly thing to say. I'd wager most progressives don't give Cuba a second thought, unless it is raised by a conservative as an example of the "failings of communism". Just silly.
Lastly, Dr. Ross speaks of "the Left" as demonizing an entire group/class of people, or noting that looking at class "provides an easy way for simple-minded people to know who to hate". Then, interestingly, I read comments from the people who obviously agree with him, and see from them hate-filled comments, caustic language and homophobic rhetoric. If I may hold Dr. Ross up as a representative of the commenters on his "side" of the debate (not fair, I know), I'll share a lesson I was taught as a child. When you point a finger as someone else, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you. Ain't psychological projection grand? This whole article seems replete with it.
Mike| 12.15.11 @ 10:21PM
I listened to you on Thom Hartmann. When you asked the question, how, Eisenhower used high Corporate taxes to better society?
Well sir, think about it. After WWII, most CEO's were Veterans, they appreciated the high school kid from Kentucky in the tail of their B17. There was not the Disconnect of today where CEO's think they should be knighted as Royalty today with food tasteres and Corporate cocoons.
In the 1950's, Corporations and Individuals were "Incentivized" with Tax Loopholes like "defined benefit pension plans, health care insurance, life insurance for employees, spouses, and kids, adoption services, Senior Parent assistance, Training of new hires to do their job given the IQ they needed to be a good employee.
All this has gone away. Corporations have been successful in having tax incentives to do Offshore hiring and firing in the USA like the bill that was defeated in September 2010 by 45 US Senators who just happen to be Republicans 60 vote minority control of the US Senate. The 800 Multinationals won, continue to fire in the USA and hire offshore. IBM is a good example, today there are 98,000 employees in the USA, a net loss of 50,000 in the last decade but have over 100,000 in IBM India.
Corporations and wealthy will only do good things if they are "Incentivized" with High Taxes and the Loopholes to jump through, for the benefit of Society to reduce those taxes.
Think about it, Higher taxes worked to create a huge middle class that is going away, rapidly. I was in a poor family as a kid but worked my way out into the Middle Class top 10%, thanks to, in many cases, the money I had left over I saved.
Today, with 900,000 family Medical Bankrupties (no other country allows that), training that is not given where kids go into debt or working as unpaid interns to get a job where Corporations do not pay for and puts that risk on the kids with no guarantees.
A final note, if this travesty is not corrected, we will see a Revolution, where everyone will lose especially those in the gated communities.