014's GDP Final Revisions: -2.9%, Looks Like Another Recession
06-29-2014, 04:56 PM
Lots of good discussions above and its a credit to us as men: Can you name me a women's blog ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that discusses such topics?? Women's blogs are almost exclusively 1) mommy blogs that engage in navel-gazing ...isn't it wonderful that junior spit up so well or 2) feminasty griping that the reason men don't desire their fat, hairy asses isn't due to the nature of human sexuality, but because patriarchy.
One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity? Or would it be more "fair" if that wealth was distributed more evenly to the less-abled -- even though this would necessarily mean redistributing wealth FROM the people who created it TO people who had nothing to do with it?
So what do we owe the blue-collar and lower-skilled white collar workers among us? I would argue it is opportunity to compete to the best of their abilities (i.e., no affirmative action, female-first policies), and a booming economy that creates jobs. Further, I think we owe them our paternalism, a culture that says "Hey sorry to come across as judgmental, but if you are going to have kids out of wedlock we are going to shame you rather than put you on the dole".
Government, of course, is not interested in any of these things, at least not primarily interested: Government is interested in preserving and expanding its own power. So I think we should revert to the founders vision of limited government and instead give the wealthiest among us the problem: In exchange for something they want (lower estate taxes, perhaps), lets task the 1% with achieving, within 15 years, a less top-heavy distribution of income.
One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity? Or would it be more "fair" if that wealth was distributed more evenly to the less-abled -- even though this would necessarily mean redistributing wealth FROM the people who created it TO people who had nothing to do with it?
So what do we owe the blue-collar and lower-skilled white collar workers among us? I would argue it is opportunity to compete to the best of their abilities (i.e., no affirmative action, female-first policies), and a booming economy that creates jobs. Further, I think we owe them our paternalism, a culture that says "Hey sorry to come across as judgmental, but if you are going to have kids out of wedlock we are going to shame you rather than put you on the dole".
Government, of course, is not interested in any of these things, at least not primarily interested: Government is interested in preserving and expanding its own power. So I think we should revert to the founders vision of limited government and instead give the wealthiest among us the problem: In exchange for something they want (lower estate taxes, perhaps), lets task the 1% with achieving, within 15 years, a less top-heavy distribution of income.