Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Here are two excerpts from a couple of Silent Cal's speeches, which I find timely for the discussion we are having about the economy and the need for entitlement reform.
The State is not founded on selfishness. It cannot maintain itself by the offer of material rewards. It is the opportunity for service. There has of late been held out the hope that government could by legislation remove from the individual the need of effort. The managers of industries have seemed to think that their difficulties could be removed and prosperity ensured by changing the laws. The employee has been led to believe that his condition could be made easy by the same method. When industries can be carried on without any struggle, their results will be worthless, and when wages can be secured without any effort they will have no purchasing value. In the end the value of the product will be measured by the amount of effort necessary to secure it...
And from another:
There is a natural desire in every human mind to seek better conditions. Such a desire is altogether praiseworthy. There must, however, be discrimination in the methods employed. Wholesale criticism of everybody and everything does not necessarily exhibit statesmanlike qualities, and may not be true. Not all those who are working to better the condition of the people are Bolsheviki or enemies of society. Not all those who are attempting to conduct a successful business are profiteers. But unreasonable criticism and agitation for unreasonable remedies will avail nothing. We, in common with the whole world, are suffering from a shortage of materials. There is but one remedy for this: increased production. We need to use sparingly what we have and make more. No progress will be made by shouting Bolsheviki and profiteers.
What we need is thrift and industry. Let everybody keep at work. Profitable employment is the death blow to Bolshevism and abundant production is disaster to the profiteer. Our salvation lies in putting forth greater effort, in manfully assuming our own burdens, rather than in entertaining the pleasing delusion that they can be shifted to some other shoulders. Those who attempt to lead people on in this expectation only add to their burdens and their dangers.
He was not, after all, always silent.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Ben Domenech:
Hinky Dink and Bathhouse John must have both laughed out loud at that.
When Cal had something to say, he came right out with it.
Nov '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Thanks for this. I think
might also be pertinent to certain other discussions which have been occurring recently on Ricochet.
Mar '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Coolidge's First Inaugural address is worth reading in full. One extract:
...the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation. The principle involved in this effort is that of conservation. The resources of this country are almost beyond computation...But the cost of our combined governments is likewise almost beyond definition. Not only those who are now making their tax returns, but those who meet the enhanced cost of existence in their monthly bills, know by hard experience what this great burden is and what it does. No matter what others may want, these people want a drastic economy. They are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government....every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant.
Oct '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Quite the fly-fisherman that Cal...
Jun '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
June 19, 1923 The Price of Freedom p. 389 Cal on "spreading the wealth"
"... our country is an exceedingly good example of the fact if production is encouraged and increased, then distribution fairly well takes care of itself. Other countries by their actions in stopping production, in penalizing industry and economy, and rewarding indolence and extravagance, have been able to bring about a very general and equal distribution of misery, but no other country ever approached ours in the equal and general distribution of prosperity."
Edited on January 29, 2012 at 3:40pmDec '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Crow's Nest: Coolidge's First Inaugural address is worth reading in full. One extract:
...I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government....every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. · 5 hours ago
This is the problem with the Laffer curve and similar arguments. Their implicit aim suggests that the highest priority is to maximize government revenue.
Restating Coolidge's argument as a maxim:
The more government takes from the productive sector, the less prosperity is produced and reducing prosperity disproportionately harms poor working people.
Any suggestions for capturing the essence of Coolidge's argument in a more persuasive maxim?
Is not Coolidge's argument always true?
Edited on January 29, 2012 at 6:14pmDec '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Ben Domenech: Here are two excerpts from a couple of Silent Cal's speeches...
In the end the value of the product will be measured by the amount of effort necessary to secure it...
The aim of a good businessman is to benefit his customer by providing a more economical, superior product. To keep good employees he must benefit his employees by providing better pay and better working conditions and by helping them learn to be more productive. The complete aim of the good businessman is to develop mutually-beneficial solutions that benefit everyone--or as businessmen say, win-win. This usually requires prudence and great effort. Success is not measured by the effort but by the benefit.
Those who see and defend the American Order as a selfish and greedy Capitalist order should consider that in Plato's Republic, Socrates two finest definitions of justice were "giving to each what is best for them" and "helping one's friends and harming no one."
Edited on January 29, 2012 at 5:44pmAug '10
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
It might be implicit, but to be fair to Laffer the original intent of the curve was only to illustrate the relationship between marginal tax rates and revenue. Just like how supply and demand curves show a relationship between scarcity and price, a useful relationship to explain regardless of the implications others take from them.
I try to avoid being pedantic, but you did say "always"...
Contra the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, there is a minimum level of protection and infrastructure which needs to be in place in order for producers to be able to trade. Some of this is local, some is at the national level (arguably, that distinction is arbitrary).
Those structures must be funded, which require some form of taxation, fees, levies, etc on the productive sector. It's the rare, proto-state case where a small amount of taxation actually helps producers be more productive.
Of course, we're far beyond the minimalist state now. Coolidge has been correct ever since he said it.
Dec '11
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
BlueAnt
I try to avoid being pedantic, but you did say "always"...
It's the rare, proto-state case where a small amount of taxation actually helps producers be more productive.
Of course, we're far beyond the minimalist state now. Coolidge has been correct ever since he said it. · 1 hour ago
I will try to avoid being pedantic as well. So Coolidge has always been right since he said it?
So I should have qualified my question with the obvious?
In any actual functioning state, is Cooledge is always right?
But in context of the suggested maxim:
The more government takes from the productive sector, the less prosperity is produced and reducing prosperity disproportionately harms poor working people.
How would you correct the maxim?
It may be desireable for even the poor to choose to be less prosperous in order to be more secure or even to have better roads, but, nonetheless, in any actual functioning state or for all practical purposes, they have less for their families.
As you note, government does little to increase general prosperity yet they claim everything they do increases prosperity.
Thanks for your response.
Aug '10
Re: Calvin Coolidge on Entitlements
Ralph Baskett So I should have qualified my question with the obvious?
In any actual functioning state, is Cooledge is always right?
Maybe I was being overly optimistic about Coolidge's timeline. WWII and the interstate highway system were both after his time, so there were at least some identifiable "projects" worth the tax dollars. But it's not worth the time to comb through 70+ years of federal expenditures, trying to identify a tipping point.
I'll amend my praise to "Coolidge was correct for most of the tax dollars taken since he said it." And I apologize to the site at large for my pedantry.
I wouldn't. I agree with the general theory it represents. The only issue is that everyone you debate with will have a different interpretation of "productive", and you'll have to argue definitions every time the topic comes up. But I can't think of wording that would avoid the problem.