Conservative Populism: Tucker Carlson vs. David French

 

Tucker Carlson has recently done an exposition on populism that has gone viral. It is biting and rangy, covering a bunch of topics related to populism but from a conservative perspective. This has drawn fire from some on the Right that view populism as an evil thing that good folks on the Right should avoid. David French has a response in National Review where he blasts Carlson and populism in general.

What is populism and does it fit with conservative values? I think it does when taken in good measure. I think Carlson and French are both too extreme.

In Tucker’s monologue, he does make a few assertions that are not evident (e.g., women won’t marry men that make less money than themselves), but, in general, he addresses a lot of valid points where some groups of Americans have struggled over the last generation. He correctly notes the global rise in populism from Trump in the US, to Brexit, to Poland, to Brazil. He also notes that elitist thought-leaders promote some conservative values (free markets) over other conservative values (rule-of-law, strong families). He complains about Libertarian laissez-faire attitudes. However, the best example of Tucker’s mindset is from an interview he did with Ben Shapiro where he said he would outlaw robots to save jobs. This is the exact thinking of the Luddites who famously smashed looms to prevent productivity improvements that would them some jobs.

On the other extreme is David French. He is so set on destroying the idea of populism, that after complementing Carlson, he concocts a series of fallacious arguments to blast Carlson and populism. Here is one example from French:

(By the way, it’s strange to hear populists of either party talk — as Tucker does — of elites thinking of market capitalism as a “religion.” Both parties in this nation have embraced a truly massive social safety net. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare dwarf other categories of federal spending. Total federal outlays — not counting state and local expenditures — represent roughly 20 percent of gross domestic product.)

This is a false dichotomy whereby it is impossible to have both a social safety net and a misdirected industrial policy that causes undue harm to certain groups of Americans. It also falsely equates the value of a meaningful job with a handout, which no true conservative should do. When people argue against their own proclaimed principles it means that they have higher priorities, like maintaining the elitist purity of their circle and cleansing it of the working-class taint of populism. French’s attitude is one of “let them eat cake.”

Populism is simply government policy/culture that is beneficial to the common citizen. As Lincoln said, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Conservatism is the preference for principles and systems that are time-tested to promote prosperous ordered liberty. What does conservative populism look like?

  • Societal leaders publicly promoting the formula for prosperity: learn a trade, marry a life-mate, then have kids. As Adam Carolla wisely said, “[Successful people] should preach what the practice.” Instead, we have Hollywood and politicians saying “let your freak flag fly” and “don’t judge.” But the time-tested principle is to judge and promote education and family formation.
  • Politicians should fight violations of law relating to international markets that affect American workers. Free trade has benefits in a Ricardo-way, but it also has costs. If another nation is breaking the law (moral code) of abusing workers/environment or massive theft of intellectual property, then the trade must be stopped. If free trade causes undue destruction of human capital by product dumping, then trade should be curtailed. Rule-of-law and preservation of capital are conservative principles.
  • Politicians should avoid war for profiteering, which benefits the Beltway crowd at the expense of life and treasure of the common citizen. The Bush 43/Obama 44 wars have cost trillions in debt and thousands of lives and have provided no improvement to urban Detroit or rural Kentucky. Even accepting the special role of US hegemony, the time-tested principle is to minimize involvement in wars. Madison warned of the dangers of a standing army.

There are many other issues where conservative populism can be applied (immigration, global warming, healthcare, criminal justice,…). The point is that conservative principles are not only compatible with populism, but they demand a certain measure of it. The difference between medicine and poison is the dosage.

Published in Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 156 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Why are those American workers more deserving of your money than the BMW workers in South Carolina?

    Because I think they are. Because I have a responsibility to other Americans and to American companies that I do not have to Germans and German companies: I do have responsibilities to people in other countries, it isn’t all or nothing, but my foremost loyalty is to America and other Americans.

    Now, if all the American cars are total pieces of junk, and foreign cars run really well, that would change things: this is one reason why I would never oppose foreign imports. They help to keep standards up, but everything else being equal, I will buy American whenever possible. Because I am American :)

    • #91
  2. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Is your issue that Apple does not pay American workers or that it doesn’t pay Chinese workers as if they were Americans?

    My issue is that Apple does not pay American workers. I assume the reason they don’t do this is because American workers are more expensive, but maybe they would still prefer Chinese workers who have no rights whatsoever to Americans even if the cost were the same. The main issue is, they don’t want to pay Americans. The main issue is, they have no loyalty to the country they live in, that makes their businesses possible.

    Google has refused to work with the American military, but they are working with the Chinese military. Which would be fine, if they were willing to give up their American citizenship and move to China, but they aren’t. Please explain to me why I should be ok with what they are doing.

    • #92
  3. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Because I think they are. Because I have a responsibility to other Americans and to American companies that I do not have to Germans and German companies: I do have responsibilities to people in other countries, it isn’t all or nothing, but my foremost loyalty is to America and other Americans.

    Now, if all the American cars are total pieces of junk, and foreign cars run really well, that would change things: this is one reason why I would never oppose foreign imports. They help to keep standards up, but everything else being equal, I will buy American whenever possible. Because I am American :)

    The men and women building the BMW’s in SC are just as American as those building Ford’s in Michigan, Chevy’s in KY (or those building Hondas in IN or Toyotas in TX).  Where do you fall on Chrysler’s now that it is part of FIAT?

    • #93
  4. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Because I think they are. Because I have a responsibility to other Americans and to American companies that I do not have to Germans and German companies: I do have responsibilities to people in other countries, it isn’t all or nothing, but my foremost loyalty is to America and other Americans.

    Now, if all the American cars are total pieces of junk, and foreign cars run really well, that would change things: this is one reason why I would never oppose foreign imports. They help to keep standards up, but everything else being equal, I will buy American whenever possible. Because I am American :)

    The men and women building the BMW’s in SC are just as American as those building Ford’s in Michigan, Chevy’s in KY (or those building Hondas in IN or Toyotas in TX). Where do you fall on Chrysler’s now that it is part of FIAT?

    So what? It’s a free country, I can buy whatever kind of car I want: besides, if people start buying more American cars, then American companies will hire more people, and if people working for foreign companies lose their jobs, they can get a new job with an American company. Creative destruction, right? Isn’t that what capitalism is all about? 

    • #94
  5. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    My issue is that Apple does not pay American workers. I assume the reason they don’t do this is because American workers are more expensive, but maybe they would still prefer Chinese workers who have no rights whatsoever to Americans even if the cost were the same. The main issue is, they don’t want to pay Americans. The main issue is, they have no loyalty to the country they live in, that makes their businesses possible.

    Google has refused to work with the American military, but they are working with the Chinese military. Which would be fine, if they were willing to give up their American citizenship and move to China, but they aren’t. Please explain to me why I should be ok with what they are doing.

    Apple pays thousands of Americans.  It also pays thousands of Chinese.  Would you prefer Apple manufacturer the products it sells in a way to make them commercially uncompetitive?  That rather than iPhones and iPads Americans (and British, German, and Japanese) were using Samsung’s and Nokia’s?

    What about Apple’s loyalty to its stockholders?

    • #95
  6. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    So what? It’s a free country, I can buy whatever kind of car I want: besides, if people start buying more American cars, then American companies will hire more people, and if people working for foreign companies lose their jobs, they can get a new job with an American company. Creative destruction, right? Isn’t that what capitalism is all about? 

    No one is arguing you can’t buy whatever car you want.  I’m trying to understand your reasoning for treating American workers in SC differently than those in Michigan.  

    American companies manufacture cars all over the world.  

    Is Chrysler an American company?

    • #96
  7. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    My issue is that Apple does not pay American workers. I assume the reason they don’t do this is because American workers are more expensive, but maybe they would still prefer Chinese workers who have no rights whatsoever to Americans even if the cost were the same. The main issue is, they don’t want to pay Americans. The main issue is, they have no loyalty to the country they live in, that makes their businesses possible.

    Google has refused to work with the American military, but they are working with the Chinese military. Which would be fine, if they were willing to give up their American citizenship and move to China, but they aren’t. Please explain to me why I should be ok with what they are doing.

    Apple pays thousands of Americans. It also pays thousands of Chinese. Would you prefer Apple manufacturer the products it sells in a way to make them commercially uncompetitive? That rather than iPhones and iPads Americans (and British, German, and Japanese) were using Samsung’s and Nokia’s?

    What about Apple’s loyalty to its stockholders?

    I think loyalty to country comes first.

    What do you think about what Google is doing? It might be the right thing for their stockholders in the short term, but is it really the right thing? Do you think it’s ok?

    • #97
  8. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    So what? It’s a free country, I can buy whatever kind of car I want: besides, if people start buying more American cars, then American companies will hire more people, and if people working for foreign companies lose their jobs, they can get a new job with an American company. Creative destruction, right? Isn’t that what capitalism is all about?

    No one is arguing you can’t buy whatever car you want. I’m trying to understand your reasoning for treating American workers in SC differently than those in Michigan.

    American companies manufacture cars all over the world.

    Is Chrysler an American company?

    I am not treating American workers differently based on where they live; I am treating them differently based on whom they work for.

    One of the reasons Trump was elected was he promised to do what he could to bring American manufacturing back to America; we all know that American companies manufacture cars all over the world, we want them to manufacture more cars here.

    I have never owned a Chrysler in my life: if they aren’t an American company anymore, than I never will.

    • #98
  9. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    I think loyalty to country comes first.

    What do you think about what Google is doing? It might be the right thing for their stockholders in the short term, but is it really the right thing? Do you think it’s ok?

    Why?  Does the country provide the capital needed to run the company or do shareholders?

    What Google is doing is a completely different matter than what you are complaining about Apple doing.  I honestly do not know enough about what exactly it is said to be doing to have an informed opinion.

    • #99
  10. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Why? Does the country provide the capital needed to run the company or do shareholders?

    There is more to life than capital: the country provides the freedom needed to run the company, which is one reason why those who run Apple prefer to do it from America. 

    American men fight, bleed and die so that Americans can be free to run companies like Apple: stockholders are also necessary, but I feel a lot more loyalty to the men who fight, bleed and die for me than I could ever feel for any stockholder. Maybe that is why I am not rich :) Maybe I would be a lousy business person, but this country is filled mostly with people like me, and we vote, and a lot of us voted for Trump. I understand that there are huge short term gains to be made by doing business in China, but in order to do business in China, American companies are obliged to suck up to the Chinese government in a myriad of ways. This is problematic. Who was that communist who said that communists would sell American the rope to hang ourselves with? I can’t remember, but I always think of his words whenever the issue of China comes up. I realize that businessmen never want to leave money on the table, but sometimes it is in everyone’s long term best interests to do that.

    Most Americans can deal with being poor: if withdrawing from China means losing some money, or having to spend more on a cell phone, we will cope. Those problems pale in comparison to having an elite class which feels no loyalty to America or other Americans-an elite class which habitually insults Americans while at the same time licking the boots of communist dictators, all in the name of doing right by the stockholders. There is far more to life than money.

    • #100
  11. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    I am not treating American workers differently based on where they live; I am treating them differently based on whom they work for.

    One of the reasons Trump was elected was he promised to do what he could to bring American manufacturing back to America; we all know that American companies manufacture cars all over the world, we want them to manufacture more cars here.

    I have never owned a Chrysler in my life: if they aren’t an American company anymore, than I never will.

    But why are you treating them differently?  They are all Americans, no?

    Do you realize the manufacturing share of real GDP has been relatively steady since the 1940’s? See here.  What has changed dramatically is employment in the manufacturing sector.  That decline is a function of technology much more than foreign competition.

    You are free to buy whatever you want, for whatever reason you want but denying yourself a product you may enjoy more or serve your needs better or offer a better value simply because of where the company whose name is on it is incorporated is self defeating.  Trade is a win-win.  I win when I purchase the best product for my money and everyone involved in getting that product to me benefits as well.

    • #101
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    I have never owned a Chrysler in my life: if they aren’t an American company anymore, than I never will.

    If I may intersect into this for a moment, I have perhaps germane story to tell.  My first car that I bought myself was a 1984 Dodge, Charger (a Chrysler).  It was small and sporty, and really, the only reason I chose it was because it was a Chrysler and the US had just bailed out Chrysler, and I was doing my patriotic thing, helping them get back on their feet.

    That car was the biggest lemon.  The service department at the dealership was the biggest lemon.  It never worked right.  The tach never worked right.  I took it into the shop three times for a transmission leak before a friend who worked on VWs told me that my car had been recalled for a bad surfacing on where the two halves of the transaxel met.  I told the service dept. and they got all huffy and said they knew all about it.  After this repair it still never ran just right.

    Moral: Patriotism doesn’t cover bad design, manufacture and service.

    • #102
  13. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    There is more to life than capital: the country provides the freedom needed to run the company, which is one reason why those who run Apple prefer to do it from America. 

    American men fight, bleed and die so that Americans can be free to run companies like Apple: stockholders are also necessary, but I feel a lot more loyalty to the men who fight, bleed and die for me than I could ever feel for any stockholder. Maybe that is why I am not rich :) Maybe I would be a lousy business person, but this country is filled mostly with people like me, and we vote, and a lot of us voted for Trump. I understand that there are huge short term gains to be made by doing business in China, but in order to do business in China, American companies are obliged to suck up to the Chinese government in a myriad of ways. This is problematic. Who was that communist who said that communists would sell American the rope to hang ourselves with? I can’t remember, but I always think of his words whenever the issue of China comes up. I realize that businessmen never want to leave money on the table, but sometimes it is in everyone’s long term best interests to do that.

    Most Americans can deal with being poor: if withdrawing from China means losing some money, or having to spend more on a cell phone, we will cope. Those problems pale in comparison to having an elite class which feels no loyalty to America or other Americans-an elite class which habitually insults Americans while at the same time licking the boots of communist dictators, all in the name of doing right by the stockholders. There is far more to life than money.

    There is more to life but than capital but it is essential to any company.  Apple is based in the US because it was founded by Americans.  That certainly doesn’t impose any obligation on it to employ only Americans.

    I spent a career in the Army and I can tell you I never met a soldier who thought his fellow Americans were being disloyal to him or the country by buying a German car, a Korean TV, or Chinese made clothes.

    How do you know that most Americans can deal with being poor?  That is a very odd thing to say.

    • #103
  14. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    I win when I purchase the best product for my money and everyone involved in getting that product to me benefits as well.

    What if the communist government of China benefits? What if you are helping to enrich oppressive dictators? Is that a win for everybody too?

    I realize that in this context, we are talking specifically about Germany: the EU isn’t as bad as communist China, but it’s bad enough, and I don’t want to support it.

    If every place on earth were just as free as every other place, and every place were just as free as America, then I might agree with your view of trade: if every place on earth were free, then countries would not be necessary. But as it is, countries are necessary: I prefer to support businesses and countries which promote freedom. Why in the world would I want to put money in the pockets of people who don’t care about freedom?

    Please, don’t try to tell me that free trade will make other countries more free. I have been hearing that all my life, and I am almost 50:it hasn’t happened yet. It is clear from their words and actions that the people who run companies like Apple and Google do not care about freedom in China or freedom in America.

    • #104
  15. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    What if the communist government of China benefits? What if you are helping to enrich oppressive dictators? Is that a win for everybody too?

    What if a reformer in the Chinese government benefits?  What if you help lift a peasant in China out of abject poverty and he and his neighbors know it is Americans making their life better and not the government?

    What if a US mobster benefits?

    There are an infinite number of  what if’s. 

    Free trade makes me freer.

    • #105
  16. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    How do you know that most Americans can deal with being poor? That is a very odd thing to say.

    America has had lots of financial ups and downs, and we always get through. As far as I know, we have never before had an elite class of business executives sucking up to a foreign power which is by the way also a communist dictatorship: that is a much bigger problem long term than any down turn in the economy. We survived for a long time without China: we can survive without China. We cannot survive as a country if we tolerate large numbers of upper class Americans think that the nation state is a thing of the past, who feel no particular loyalty to America-to the country and the people who made their wealth possible. I am sorry, but if these folks want to be citizens of the world, they should go do it somewhere else. All they ever do is insult and attack normal Americans: if they dislike us so much, why do they want to share a country with us?

     

    • #106
  17. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Free trade makes me freer.

    Yes, and slavery in the American South made some people freer. So what?

    See, though, this is kind of what I mean about short term gains versus long term gains. In the short term, buying cheap stuff from China might make us somewhat more free, but there is no way around it: we are enriching a communist regime which seeks to replace us as the World’s superpower. I don’t believe that makes me more free, not in the long term, anyway.

    • #107
  18. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    America has had lots of financial ups and downs, and we always get through. As far as I know, we have never before had an elite class of business executives sucking up to a foreign power which is by the way also a communist dictatorship: that is a much bigger problem long term than any down turn in the economy. We survived for a long time without China: we can survive without China. We cannot survive as a country if we tolerate large numbers of upper class Americans think that the nation state is a thing of the past, who feel no particular loyalty to America-to the country and the people who made their wealth possible. I am sorry, but if these folks want to be citizens of the world, they should go do it somewhere else. All they ever do is insult and attack normal Americans: if they dislike us so much, why do they want to share a country with us?

    Some Americans have not gotten through some of those financial downs.  Who are you to decide someone else can do with less?  You don’t want anyone to tell you what car to buy but you are willing to condemn others to being poor?

    Your notion of normal Americans versus upper class Americans is right out of Marx.  For all you objections to Chinese Communists, you are parroting Marxist class warfare rhetoric better than any Chinese person I have ever met.  

    Love of country is not limited to normal Americans (however that is defined) and it certainly isn’t determined by what brand of car you drive.

    • #108
  19. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Yes, and slavery in the American South made some people freer. So what?

    See, though, this is kind of what I mean about short term gains versus long term gains. In the short term, buying cheap stuff from China might make us somewhat more free, but there is no way around it: we are enriching a communist regime which seeks to replace us as the World’s superpower. I don’t believe that makes me more free, not in the long term, anyway.

    Who did slavery make more free?

    A prosperous China, engaged with the world, is much better for us and our allies than the poor insular China of the mid-20th century.  A challenge for sure but better across the board.

    • #109
  20. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Your notion of normal Americans versus upper class Americans is right out of Marx. For all you objections to Chinese Communists, you are parroting Marxist class warfare rhetoric better than any Chinese person I have ever met.

    No, it isn’t. Marx hated every single wealthy person on the face of the earth simply because they were wealthy: he wanted to confiscate their wealth. I am totally fine with rich people, until they start telling me that I am a deplorable. Until they start aiding the military of a foreign country while refusing to help the American military. Until they start bragging about the fact that they feel no loyalty to America whatsoever and consider themselves citizens of the world. Then I have a problem with them, but even so, I would never try to confiscate their wealth. I don’t want the government to own the means of production.

    This might be class warfare, but I am not the one who started it: some conservatives have no problem with rich people who constantly critique and attack the poor, but God forbid anyone criticize a rich person-that’s not allowed, because that is class warfare. Give me a break. If you can dish it out, then you ought to be able to take it. If the rich want to criticize the poor-and there are times when they should, and when their criticism is valid-then they ought to be able and willing to accept criticism in return.

    • #110
  21. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Who are you to decide someone else can do with less? You don’t want anyone to tell you what car to buy but you are willing to condemn others to being poor?

    I don’t have the power to to decide anything for anyone, or to condemn anyone to anything. There are a lot of Americans who feel as I do, and many of us voted for Trump. You would have condemned us to Jeb Bush :)

    America is far more-has to be far more-than a good standard of living. If you make the economy the be all and end all, then you are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Our main, over riding goal should always be freedom: money is nice too, but secondary. I don’t have the power to impose this view on anyone; I am pretty sure that most Americans agree with me on this.

    • #111
  22. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    A prosperous China, engaged with the world, is much better for us and our allies than the poor insular China of the mid-20th century. A challenge for sure but better across the board.

    There is no way of knowing whether this is true or not: it is an assertion that is impossible to prove or refute. Considering the vast technology that China has stolen from us, including military technology, it is fair to wonder. Why does a prosperous China engaged with the world need to steal military technology from us? For that matter, why do they continue being a communist dictatorship?

    The Soviet Union fell because we bankrupted them. It is fair to wonder if making China rich is really the way to make the world a better place.

    • #112
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    I don’t advocate you be forced to do anything. If you want to open a textile plant in Cleveland, pay your workers $30/hr with benefits, and charge 5 – 6 times what your competitors do, feel free. What I don’t want is for the government to force your competitors to do what you are doing or artificially increasing the price of their products to make you competitive in the market.

    But you have no problem with Americans using slave labor in third world countries? I think there are very serious problems with that, both morally and economically. I would be far more comfortable with it if the executives who want to profit from the third world were also willing to live there, but for some reason, they never are. I would never force anyone to stay in America: if they guy who runs Apple wants to move all of his operations, including himself, to China, by all means, he should. But as it is, he wants all the benefits of living in America, but he doesn’t want to pay American workers. That is disgusting, and I really don’t think conservatives can win by defending it. Even if we could, it would still be wrong.

    This is why Western central banks have to quit creating inflation and we have to also reduce prices by deregulating. With robots and globalize trade, this creates deflation which is nothing but better living through purchasing power. Why don’t they do that? Because for a variety of reasons, mostly bad ones, it’s too hard to switch back to a system like that. The system we have before 1914. 

    This is only going to get resolved when the financial system blows up.

    • #113
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    There is more to life than capital: the country provides the freedom needed to run the company, which is one reason why those who run Apple prefer to do it from America.

    Our current inflationist Fed policy, and our crony-istic economy favors capital over the labor. It doesn’t have to be like that.

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    I understand that there are huge short term gains to be made by doing business in China,

    Don’t ask me to explain it, but it started under Greenspan. He started goosing the economy in 1996 and that’s when we started off shoring jobs at an accelerated rate for no good reason. They got the jobs, sold us stuff and then they bought our treasury bills and mortgage-backed securities. Swell.

    ***one edit***

    • #114
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Free trade makes me freer.

    It’s not free enough, so now socialism looks attractive.

    • #115
  26. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    No, it isn’t. Marx hated every single wealthy person on the face of the earth simply because they were wealthy: he wanted to confiscate their wealth. I am totally fine with rich people, until they start telling me that I am a deplorable. Until they start aiding the military of a foreign country while refusing to help the American military. Until they start bragging about the fact that they feel no loyalty to America whatsoever and consider themselves citizens of the world. Then I have a problem with them, but even so, I would never try to confiscate their wealth. I don’t want the government to own the means of production.

    This might be class warfare, but I am not the one who started it: some conservatives have no problem with rich people who constantly critique and attack the poor, but God forbid anyone criticize a rich person-that’s not allowed, because that is class warfare. Give me a break. If you can dish it out, then you ought to be able to take it. If the rich want to criticize the poor-and there are times when they should, and when their criticism is valid-then they ought to be able and willing to accept criticism in return.

    “They” didn’t call you deplorable, a single person did.  “They” are not aiding a foreign power, specific individuals may be.  The “rich” don’t criticize the poor, individuals do.  

    Despite your protests to the contrary, your classifying people on the basis of wealth is Marxist.  The broad generalizations you make are not only rankest sort of class warfare but they are largely false.  A wealthy person in the US can be just as patriotic as any normal American.  He can be just as charitable, just as kind. 

    • #116
  27. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    I don’t have the power to to decide anything for anyone, or to condemn anyone to anything. There are a lot of Americans who feel as I do, and many of us voted for Trump. You would have condemned us to Jeb Bush :)

    America is far more-has to be far more-than a good standard of living. If you make the economy the be all and end all, then you are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Our main, over riding goal should always be freedom: money is nice too, but secondary. I don’t have the power to impose this view on anyone; I am pretty sure that most Americans agree with me on this.

    You do have the power to advocate for policies which you admit will make Americans poorer.  You just think it is for their own good.

    You have a strange notion of freedom if it involves restricting where people can open a plant or conduct business.

    • #117
  28. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    There is no way of knowing whether this is true or not: it is an assertion that is impossible to prove or refute. Considering the vast technology that China has stolen from us, including military technology, it is fair to wonder. Why does a prosperous China engaged with the world need to steal military technology from us? For that matter, why do they continue being a communist dictatorship?

    The Soviet Union fell because we bankrupted them. It is fair to wonder if making China rich is really the way to make the world a better place.

    There is a way of knowing, we can compare their actions then to their actions now.  There is no Cultural Revolution going on now, Chinese soldiers are not engaged in combat with Americans,…

    Countries spy on each other.  They steal military technology from each other.  That is the nature of the world we live in.

    • #118
  29. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Does the country provide the capital needed to run the company or do shareholders?

    With Judithann, but I’d argue capital is more than just the obvious economics. It is investment in education, culture, and freedom as well.

    Personally, you and I are so much polar opposites on this we don’t belong in the same party.

    It’s the ethics of caring for your own. It is something it’s quite obvious you see absolutely no reason to have because money trumps all.

    • #119
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Stina (View Comment):
    With Judithann, but I’d argue capital is more than just the obvious economics. It is investment in education, culture, and freedom as well.

    This is a very big deal and no one cares.

    Yet capital is distinct from money, it is a largely irreversible, definite structure, composed of heterogeneous elements which can be (loosely) described as goods, knowledge, context, human beings, talents and experience. Money is “only” the simplifying aid that enables us to record the incredibly complex heterogeneous capital structure in a uniform manner. It serves as a basis for assessing the value of these diverse forms of capital.

    Modern economics textbooks usually refer to capital with the letter “C”. This conceptual approach blurs the important fact that capital is not merely a single magnitude, an economic variable representing a magically self-replicating homogenous blob but a heterogeneous structure. Among the various economic schools of thought it is first and foremost the Austrian School of Economics, which stresses the heterogeneity of capital.

    link

    I was reading something the other day that made me think of how evil our education system is. It’s supposed to be part of how you develop your human capital. I’m not sure that happens, and we charged too much for it.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.