I don’t see it that way. It makes perfect sense why libbies do though. You make it seem as though government can exist independent of the success of private biz. It cannot. However, biz can and does create wealth without government interference. I don’t mind paying taxes at all, defense, national parks, education are all wonderful things we should all support. Why it can’t do these things and get the hell out of the way in other matters is beyond me. Your government that you seem to be bending over backwards for has mid-managed our money to the tune of trillions.
The more I consider your stance the more telling our arguments are in differentiating our political pov. We are likely to go in circles about how govt is funded and the significance of how biz funds the govt. You happen to put the carriage in front of the horse. Oh well. More interesting to me is that I’m starting to see more clearly why libbies identify with a more govt-centric focus. Hmmmm.
Still waiting for you to point to the wealthy country that has little or no government. And you don't seem to understand how investment works. If private business takes money, invests it, and creates more wealth because of it, you say that business created wealth. If the government takes money (money that we voted for them to take), invests it, and creates wealth, you say the government didn't create any wealth. It's absurd.
I agree in premise, but wealth is relative. Im sure even back in the day some people had the nicer cave, closer to the water source and good hunting land. Wealth is just the phenomenon of having more than others by comparison and that will exist with or without ed or tech. We just all enjoy it in greater amounts because of the two.
You’re waiting for me to name a wealthy country without a government? Why? That has no bearing on the subject, nor did I say a country should abolish the role of govt. here you go….business earns money. Government takes money. Govt cannot exist without earned money. See John Galt.
"A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force…government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one…reverses its only moral purpose." AR
Your argument is absurd. Internet startups can't exist without earned money too. Internet startups take money from investors. How do you think Google got started? They took someone else's money and invested it in their idea.
You are equating the government as functioning as though it runs like a business. That is absurd. And no biz stays around after it loses money like the govt does. Biz takes an investment and doesn’t succeed, it closes. Govt, takes and takes and loses our money and continues to operate with little to no accountability. If govt did create wealth, and be held accountable like a biz, it would be more lean and efficient. Todays govt ONLY exists because people irrationally believe it can do more than it realistically can. The bottom line is that proof. Huge deficits. Again, govt is literally operating in the red, and you want more of it! Bizarre.
No, I'm not saying government runs like a business. But it does invest in our country's future and creates wealth. Education alone proves that. Do you think the University of Florida hasn't created any wealth? Gatorade would disagree with you.
I think you’re overstating it’s role and it’s significance. Government should not get involved in picking winners and losers either, see Solyndra. That’s the problem in pointing out a story like Gatorade, govt history in biz is so bad. It’s a shame you have so much faith in it. Best case scenario, govt leaches off the ingenuity and taxes of others. Guys like you give it credit for an aberration, the rule is that govt is bloated and inefficient and should stay the heck out of private biz as much as possible. This was fun. I’m off to do a family day at universal.
It's interesting that you mention the age of cavemen given that I've been reading the Yuval Harari books recently. I agree with you that wealth is relative in the sense that people have different degrees of it - but I think that's relatively recent, and the gap seems to be getting wider over time. Harari submits (I don't know if other historians agree) that in the stone age and prior to our collective buy-in to the concepts of credit and investment, sapiens had a stagnant set of expectations regarding the amount of wealth and resources that could be created; they did not have a sense of the need to grow GDP. He posits that we were more like other animals that fought for and often even shared limited resources. I imagine that dominant members of some species would have additional cultural perks than others, such as alpha males having more mates. But that the gap of resources for cavemen probably wasn't that great and the size of the pie (GDP) was basically unchanging. Moreover, for example, meat goes bad. It's not something that could be put into a freezer or "bank" and saved for years, much less passed on to one's offspring to create the generational wealth we see today. They also did not have the concept of incorporated entities, which are essentially a legal fiction, which could exist independent of and survive beyond the life of the individual. One question he is focused on is whether people are happier today than our ancient ancestors. We clearly have more power and resources as a species. That seems like an obviously good thing. But the gap in wealth has grown, which brings its own issues since we tend to base our happiness, in part, on how we see ourselves doing relative to others. Back to the main point: I think the extension of credit and investment and wealth creation generally would not be possible -certainly not at the level we see today - without education, imagination, and technology. But I think there are some potential downsides to those gaps. These trade-offs are part of the reason we're still debating economic models and their relationship to the well-being of individuals vis a vis the community as a whole.
Yes. I support taking the right away. As I view the unborn as having the same right to life as all of us. I would also take a societal holistic approach to aiding her in raising her child. But your daughter would not be a criminal in my eyes, nor be treated as one. I think both things can be true. One can both support the legal end of abortion and also not what girls treated like criminals. You've also heard me say many times that I believe Jesus would beg a girl to change her mind at the front door of the clinic, but be the first with open, accepting arms at the back door as she left. I don't take my position lightly, nor do I look down or think less of you for supporting your daughter. If one of my daughters made the same decision, I would be sad but 100% love and support her as she moved forward. We tend to be a don't hold to the past family. And listen, my daughters are both considerably more liberal than my wife and I, which is the norm for their age, and my oldest especially is very much pro choice. She certainly helps me see with at least a more compassionate lens than I may have previously.
A very interesting post. I must admit, capitalism is great and has been very good to our nation. But it definitely has an end. We cannot grow forever right?
All very good points and interesting perspective. I think my greater point is just that "wealth" is a relative societal perspective. Even our most primitive villages in jungle societies today have their hierarchy. I certainly agree that the gap is influenced by ed and tech, however the concept of wealth alone to some extent would exist.
Your infantile understanding of correlation would be interesting if it was one state or two; but most of the top 25 meet the conclusion this correlation suggests; that’s not a coincidence or a result of some annamoly. And race; poverty have nothing to do with the disparity. If you provided healthcare; those folks wouldn’t be so high. Some of the best states on infant mortality have enormous disparate cultures and poverty. They just feel the human thing to do is provide a social safety net. But I imagine they actually walk the talk of what Jesus said instead of spouting hateful nonsense in the name of said “help thy neighbor” guy.
I think competition is great, and that is a great aspect of capitalism (putting crony capitalism aside). I also support some social safety nets and a sort of mixed economy. I really feel like we are too obsessed with GDP. I know it's important and why it matters. I know that it has lifted many out of poverty around the world. But, for example, GDP growth and other economic metrics seem to be the primary argument people make when claiming that we need population growth. There are certainly upsides to that, but I'm just not convinced that growing the pie should be our primary goal when so many people who are already here are suffering in so many ways.
FYI, the specific claims in the video. I haven't checked their accuracy. Red states have 40 percent higher murder rate than blue states. Red states are 29 percent of the nation's economy, blue states 71 percent Nine of the top 10 states receiving federal welfare are red states. Nine of the top 10 states for maternal mortality and infant mortality are red states. 16 of the top 17 states for gun violence and gun deaths are red states.
keep in mind though, less that 20% of GDP (2019) is stuff. & as a %, stuff has been falling slightly over the years. Mental health counseling, guitar lessons, etc are part of GDP.
"capitalism" assumes people are trying to maximize their happiness, not their wealth, hence, aggregate happiness is what the economy is trying to maximize. Obsessions with GDP & GDP growth are IMO poor proxies that are pimped by the media & politicians & even those who think we are in an economic competition with China* et al. * I can think of little other reason to be focused on GDP growth as opposed to per capita growth. Bigger is better is weird.
