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:
Jun '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
The only recipe in the Obama Cookbook is Roasted Golden Goose. Delicious, but not very filling, and no leftovers.
Feb '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Totally agree with Foxman. The other thing that he should have pointed out to Elizabeth Warren et al. is at what level of government things are being paid for.
Interstate roads are funded in large part through the federal govt. But the proceeds are collected from a federal gas tax. The total amount collected is usually less than goes to pay for new roads or maintenance of roads. Money is diverted to bike lanes, mass transit, rail subsidies.
Police, fire protection, and schools are paid for at the local level -- either state, county or municipal and usually a combination -- and not at the level Elizabeth Warren works at.
Most of what the federal government spends money on is transfer payments and national defense. You'll notice she didn't speak about either one. I wonder why? Something to hide? Something not to mention? It is just another example of the sleight of hand politicians practice and why politicians are and should be held in such contempt.
Jan '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
This is all part of the theory of public goods. I come at this discussion from game theory, so I admit that I don't have a comprehensive view. That said ...
For the moment, I only have three points.
Aug '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
So many great comments above from fellow Rico-teers, elucidating all the utter nonsense in Ms. Warren's statement - unlike me, who just sat here sputtering to myself as I read her words. And my sputtering gibberish would never pass the Ricochet CoC. So, thanks everyone - for saying what I was sputtering. More clearly. And with less spittle.
May '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
I tracked down a link to her actual video on the WashPo website. It's here.
Watch the reaction of her audience. Useful idiots. Frightening.
Jun '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
You have to admit, the bull puckey in the article has the density of plutonium. This is something the Left is very good at. They pack so much nonsense into such a tight package, that by the time you unpack it and deal with it rationally, they're long gone and issuing another pile of this stuff on another topic.
The associated corollar: The only reason you are arguing with her brilliant insight is that you hate the working man and are blinded by your own greed. On that basis she has no reason to deign to discuss the matter with a ignoramus like you.
Feb '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
I would suggest the following amendment:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you [and for the rest of us. If it wasn’t for you, the goods your factory manufactures would be that much less abundant. We would have fewer choices about which widgets to buy, and that would be a loss for everyone. So again, thank you.]
“But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to the market on roads that the rest of us paid for[, so as grateful as I am for your factory, please don’t forget to be grateful for the contributions of your fellow citizens. Be grateful for the police officer, who is in a dangerous line of work. Be grateful for the road workers who work in the heat of the sun. Meanwhile, we’ll keep buying your goods just as long as we reckon they contribute to our felicity. We’re happy to make you rich, doing this, but only so long as you are giving something back to us — namely, your high-quality (or low priced or easily available, etc.) widgets.
“Again, thank you.”
Oct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Two of the many fallacies in her argument:
1) As others have mentioned, she implies that the successful factory owner doesn't pay more for schools, and roads, etc. He or she does. Even with a flat tax, he or she would pay more.
2) She assumes that if the government had not built those roads and educated those children, that those roads would not have been built and those children would not have been educated. I reject that argument. If the government was completely out of the road building business, yes, we would have roads, and if we did not have public education, yes, we would have schools. And maybe they would be better.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Growing up in rural NC, we had a different word for that. In this case, it more than applies.
Jun '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
By using the resources we all enjoy, the factory owner provides benefits to society even greater than those he extracts. He provides a tax base to fund the schools and police. He provides goods to society that they otherwise wouldn't have. He provides opportunity to his employees as well as a means of supporting their families. He pays a disproportionate share of the taxes that make the resources we all use possible. The argument that he still owes more after contributing more than most is ludicris.
Jun '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
"You built a factory out there - good for you." And good for us, too, because we in the governing class now have an excuse to regulate and tax you.
"You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for." And we intend to regulate those roads and every vehicle on them because that's how bureaucracy justifies its existence. "You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate." Today those schools are run by unionized faculty who contribute to the re-election campaigns of people like us so that we can dominate you. "You are safe in your factory because of the police and fire forces the rest of us paid for." And you remain safe from everybody except us because a true progressive demands a monopoly on force.
"You built a factory and it turned into something terrific" - God bless the administrative state! Because there is no human activity that we won't try to regulate, tax and control. And we expect you to pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Because some scams are too lucrative to give up. Have a nice day.
Jun '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
This nation was formed as a union of free individuals. Private property is the basic building block of freedom. We formed a government to serve us and are willing to pay for those specific services defined by our constitution. The capitalistic economic system formed a natural bond with our country precisely because we are a nation of freedom lovers. Americans are not born to serve their government in a state of tyranny. It is the success of individuals that has collectively made our country great. So, Ms Warren, exactly how much would you take from the factory owner? What precisely is, in your mind, the fair number? And are you, a free woman, voluntarily paying that number right now? Do you, Ms Warren contribute as much to our society as the factory owner. Please explain how.
That would be my short reply, Mark.
Dec '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
1) Socialists either don't know, don't care, or don't care to know how wealth is created. To socialists, the amount of capital available is fixed and unfairly (unequally) distributed between corporate types and the rest of us. Therefore, the next kid's opportunity for an equal share depends entirely on the corporate type distributing more of his own (preferably all but his equal portion). Interestingly, the same rule doesn't seem to apply to entertainers, politicians, and trust fund types -- just people who engage in private enterprise.
2) Socialists are big on the "common good" at the expense of individual rights and private property. No matter how spectacularly socialism has destroyed the common good, no matter where, no matter when, socialists have an abiding faith that they, the New Socialists, will get it right. "You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory..." is a lie. You always have to worry about the socialists coming for your stuff.
3) Socialism is the Big Lie and is inclined to totalitarianism. The common good is served by free enterprise in a law abiding society. You'd think Americans would know that.
May '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Warren is transparently attacking a straw man here; I'm aware of no one serious suggesting the rich should not pay their fair share.
Furthermore, the other "part of the underlying social contract"--which she conveniently overlooks--is that the "hunk" you pay is only your fair share. The rich are already paying far more than that.
If she were making this argument in good faith, her concern would be with free riders, those who pay few or no taxes but who nevertheless use public roads and receive police protection.
Apr '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Ms Warren is correct that all those services are provided by tax dollars but that is only part of the story and I am being taxed and regulated like crazy to provide for these services. However, I put up the capital. I took the risks. I supervise all the employees. Insure their families, provide for their retirement, etc... I get my goods to market and advertise them. I plan for the companies expansion. On and on and on. And if you ever want me or someone like me to do it again you'll allow me the fruits of my labor. I will work hard for myself, less so for you. I won't be willing to risk capital for you, only for myself. These are facts Ms Warren. Ignore them at your peril. (there, now I feel better)
PS - if you don't like it, buy the factory from me and run it as you please
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 4:20pmAug '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Fair enough, so here's my request of you Senator:
1. Don't regulate my factory output in regards to safety and or societal impact as determined by someone who doesn't live here or buy my products.
2. Don't tax my income more than once and a rate that we ALL agree on.
3. Don't hire people to do anything that doesn't produce goods or direct services desired by the citizenry.
4. Follow the Constitution as it is written, so no special treatment is afforded to anyone.
5. Have the state of Massachusetts fund your senate staff, your salary and your benefits and your travel to and from Washington.
6. For goodness sake, stop dressing and doing your hair like John Lennon. Ask John Kerry who does his hair.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 4:16pmNov '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
It’s particularly irritating when socialists start talking about roads and infrastructure as if anyone who thinks their taxes are too high is trying to avoid paying their share for those things. The first ten cents of every dollar we pay in taxes is adequate to pay for all that. No one objects to paying those taxes. It’s all the other useless stuff we have to pay for with our taxes that we want to reign in.
Oct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
From Duke University professor Mike Munger. He points out that just because we grant government the authority to provide security, does not mean that the government then owns our property.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 4:34pmMay '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Just as Richard Epstein said: "The social contract isn't worth the paper it's not written on."
Apr '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Electing this woman will be the equivalent of bringing in Paulie in Good Fellas to "help run the joint".
You know how that always ends. Need a match?