Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Mark Wilson ·
September 22, 2011 at 2:17pm
It's obviously an attempt to justify soaking the rich.
It's missing something huge and important, but in my exasperation I can't express clearly what that is. A little help?
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
What you're missing is this:
"Nice factory you got there. Be a shame if, I dunno, somebody broke it. You know, Barry and Me got some boys who can watch out for youz..."
Jul '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
She has a point.
Here's a big problem though:
Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
You see, that's not what she really means. What she means is she has the right to take a hunk of that and dispose of it as she wishes. Well, that ain't necessarily so.
She got an appointment out there- good for her. But I want to be clear.
She got that appointment from the elected official who appointed her. She has a job because the rest of us- through representation- say she does. She makes a salary because the rest of us pay for it. She doesn't have to worry that marauding bands will come and seize everything in her office...
Now look. She found herself a patron, she gets to try to set some policies- God bless!
But part of the underlying social contract is that democratic politics are determined by consensus and if the rest of us -through representation- want no truck with her counterproductive policies we can reject them, her, and her boss.
May '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
The whole you versus we meme is awful, singling out the business owner and putting him against all the rest of us.
Ignored is the fact that the business owner is part of the "rest of us" when it comes to paying for the roads, and education and police forces and firemen. Everybody's taxes pay for those things.
Ignored is the fact that the business owner provides added benefit to his customers, his employees, his vendors.
Ignored is the fact that the business owner produces something that wasn't there before by utilizing the resources he can gather and his own blood, sweat and tears.
Ignored is the fact that "we" don't help with that unless we're paid or somehow recompensed.
Why the "rest of us" should have some claim on the profit from his toil, his perseverance, his effort is beyond me.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 3:25amDec '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
We are the people who believe in limited government, not no government. Yes the government should build roads and defend the shores and fund education (although not necessarily the current public school system). Police and fire protection are also valid government functions. We do not disagree. It is the constant interference in our commerce in our freedom eat what we choose and to live as we choose that we object to. There is no incoherence on our part
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 3:51amOct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
She wisely cites only legitimate uses of our tax money that no Conservative (or libertarian, except perhaps those opposing public schools) would question. Add national defense and you're nearing a complete list of the government's obligations for a Conservative, but this is just the beginning of the Liberal shopping list (which includes a half-billion to Solyndra and two hundred and fifty $16 muffins, to cite a couple of recent items in the news).
May '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Mark Wilson: It's missing something huge and important, but in my exasperation I can't express clearly what that is. A little help? ·
A fasces?
Every now and then I run into someone who claims that the price of government (police protection, roads, military) is and ought to be that the state owns everything we have. Elizabeth Warren is just a bit nicer in how she says it.
Dec '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
To piggy back on what Briar Ann wrote, all those people employed at the factory also pay taxes to fund the list of legitimate government enterprises and can do so only because of the one she is trying to take more from.
Also, everything she listed is provided by state and local government (for the most part) and not with federal money. By taking more out of the state and local coffers she is advocating a reduction of every item on her list. I suppose paying off the unions and buying up a bunch of faux green businesses is more important.
Dec '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
The zealotry implicit in her statement is frightening. The factory owner pays more for all those services on an order that is rarely appreciated. The taxes on his wealth off the top and then all the payroll and payroll taxes which benefit his employees and then the goods and services he uses to bring his goods to market such as insurance and shipping. Elizabeth Warren is 180 degrees out of phase with her idea of the social contract.
Jul '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
"Part of the 'social contract' isn't for Me to take a 'hunk' and pay it forward.
"But!, you, and everybody else, are just as Free, and have the same American opportunity, as Me to take the time, risks and investments in creating a factory such as Mine. Heck, I'd welcome the competition. Then you could take a 'hunk' and pay it forward, or whatever else in the world you would like to do with yer money."
Sep '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Just to perhaps reiterate what others have already said… In the process of moving goods to market on the roads, fuel was consumed and a hefty fuel tax was paid. Not only did the factory owner provide jobs to the workers, he also paid unemployment insurance, social security taxes for the workers and a variety of other taxes. Warren makes it sound as though the factory owner did not have any part in the payment for the roads “the rest of us paid for.” Or in the educating of the workers “the rest of us paid to educate.” In reality, that factory owner paid a higher proportion of the cost of the infrastructure/education than the average American. Not only that, the factory owner took a great deal of risk to even get his business off the ground. To pit the factory owner against the “rest” is a mistake. Unfortunately, I think far too many in this country believe otherwise.
Apr '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
This is a terrifying statement by Warren, who with her bunny-like earnestness makes what is coming out of her mouth even more menacing. Like Santa Claus telling you he will eat your liver...
Her economic model chicken reproduces itself without laying any eggs! The "rich factory owner" provides a source of earnings to the people who work there which they would otherwise not have, and the infrastructure he uses to distribute his goods is a result of the taxable income he made by using it.....and on and on.
It is useful to remember that the term "economy" has two meanings, and the second one has to do with using undefined means sparingly and with care. If more economy was used in dealing with the redistribution of created wealth in the form of taxes, many citizens would be happier to write that check every year.
Anyone who has not tried to start his/her own business (government employees) should stay mute with heads bowed. This is what is missing in her statement. You are NEVER "safe in your factory!" You are only balancing on the edge of "Fail." It would be better for all if this was acknowledged.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
According to Warren there are two classes the factory owners and the rest of us. While this is delusional but according to Warren this factory owner proved to be more adroit at using the available resources and capital than the rest. If one is truly concerned about all one would be looking for ways to insure the most productive retained as much of their earnings as possible since they have proven to be the most capable.and would be the most likely to use them wisely.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
As a citizen, the operator of the factory paid JUST AS MUCH, if not more, for the roads, the cops, etc., than everybody else did. In other words, it's not a you versus us equation. The inference is that he has to pay MORE than everybody else and still take the risk. That's something people like Warren never want to value: the willingness to take risks.
May '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Her error is in implying that the factory owner is not willing to pay a "hunk." He is and does.
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
This is so moonbat-loopy it's not even funny. Roads "the rest of us paid for"? No, we ALL paid for them, and we ALL use them. Ditto police protection, fire protection, and so on. You can make the argument that wealthy capitalists derive greater value from these things, or have more to lose -- but the also pay a lot more in taxes than "the rest of us." They also, by putting capital at risk, generate the jobs needed to keep hundreds or thousands of people employed, and the surplus wealth that funds all the universities, think tanks, and non-profit interest groups that keep so many of the Elizabeth Warren ilk well-stocked with arugula and chardonnay. What utter bilge!
Dec '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because...
You always have to ask the question "As oppose to what?". You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. As oppose to the "rest of us", who didn't use the roads at all right? You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. As oppose to the "rest of us", who don't gain any benefit from living in an educated society right? You were safe in your factory because... As oppose to the "rest of us", who never need to call the cops. She is making the claim that as a business person I should pay more based not on how many resources I use but rather on how much I produce with those resources.
The fact that she treats economics as a zero-sum game and thus ignores that my using "the roads, educated labor force, and the police" generates more resources for every one involved than it consumes is a separate issue.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 2:47pmOct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
If there were private roads (such as the canals and railroads in the 19th century), private schools, private protection and private fire brigades, the factory owner would have done the same thing.
"You built a website out there - good for you. You moved your electrons to market on the wires your telecoms provider installed. You contracted with service providers in Poland and India. You were safe working from Starbucks because of the mall security paid for out of the lease payments your coffee purchases funded. Now, look - you built a website and it turned into something terrific. God bless. Keep it all!"
Jan '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Also missing is stability and the rule of law. Factory owners need to know exactly how much they're going to be asked to pay and roughly what they will get in return. The bill keeps going up and the regulations keep becoming more oppressive, but the benefit, especially as it relates to the quality of the educated workforce, keeps going down.
Jul '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
I agree with nearly all of the comments above, but there's another thing about the quote that is bothersome - it positively drips with condescension. The loathesome dismissiveness in referring to your little factory out there... as if sophisticated people would never stoop to such prosaic activities like actually making things. And the presumptuousness to say "go ahead, keep a hunk", as if she's magnanimously allowing someone the privilege of keeping what they earned. How grateful they should be for her kindness! Comparisons with pre-revolutionary France never seemed so apt - no wonder Obama is so taken with her.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 3:08pmMar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
There are so many false flags in Warren's screed that I don't know where to start. I would like to know who "the rest of us" are? Doesn't the factory owner, at some point, belong to that group as well? Given that the lower 50% of income earners pay about 3% of income taxes, I would say that they should be excluded from "the rest of us". A properly constructed argument might go something like this:
"You got a job in a factory that someone else paid to build. Good for you. You got to work on roads the rest of us paid for you got your education (such as it is) in a school the rest of us paid for. Your children go to schools paid for by the rest of us - their lunches paid for by the rest of us. You live in subsidized housing paid for by the rest of us. Part of the underlying social contract is if you consume, you pay. Time for you pay a chunk of it forward..."