I know that the SCOAMT would like to change the subject from ObamaCare to "the minimum wage." He thinks that's a better option for him. Heck, maybe it is. But I find myself drawn to point out something that might be obvious to some, but certainly isn't to others: they're the same discussion.
Remember, the putative "point" of ObamaCare was to "bend the cost curve down" and "make health care more affordable." Indeed, the very name of the actual bill says so: "The Affordable Care Act." And what, exactly, is the point of that if not to address that great bogeyman of the Left- Income Inequality?
Which means that any discussion of the minimum wage by Democrats is based on the same foundation as their discussions about "universal health care," or "welfare," or any number of other things. And they're all based on a faulty understanding of money.
For some reason- perhaps laziness, perhaps malfeasance, perhaps true ignorance- Democrats continue to insist that all of these things are the same: money and currency, and cost and value. This is hogwash.
Money is not the same as currency- else the exchange of currency would be a static thing. If money were the same as currency, a British Pound would always be worth exactly 1.2 US Dollars (or whatever exchange rate). Instead, we find that currency exchanges fluctuate, now 1 pound is worth 1.2 dollars, now it's worth 1.3, now it's worth 1.1. Obviously there is something other than the currency which is actually being exchanged here.
Cost is not the same as value. If it were, the economy could not grow at all. All exchanges would be either detrimental to one party or, at best, they would be neutral. If cost were the same as value, then either I (as the seller of some thing) must over-charge to see a profit, or I must under-charge (thus incurring a loss), or I must charge exactly my cost (thus seeing no benefit from the sale).
It is important to note that most liberals know all of this. Just listen to them discussing the economy. At one moment they'll tell you "the economy is not a zero sum game" and the very next they'll say, "but it acts like it." They'll say, "such-and-such adds value to what-have-you" and then they'll decry "profiteering" (as though selling things for profit were akin to being a pirate).
Yet, they act as though they believe these things they obviously know not to be true. Raising the minimum wage only makes sense if money and currency are the same thing. Price controls (which are what ObamaCare amounts to) only work if cost is the same thing as value. "Income Inequality" is only a bad thing if money is the same thing as currency and cost is the same as value.
Since neither of those things is true, then "Income Inequality" cannot be a bad thing. Indeed, it is a good thing. That "Income Inequality" is one of the major drivers of any market economy- even one as fettered by regulation and red-tape as ours. People on the bottom seek to rise to the top. Thus (if they know the truth that money != currency and cost != value), they seek to become more valuable to their employer (or their customers) while also obtaining more capital (that is: money). Those who succeed are made "richer" those who fail are made "poorer."
I am not going to engage in a defense of capitalism's record on charity. Such defenses have already been made, and only the willfully ignorant believe that capitalism does not care for the poor better than socialism.
However, I will point out that the fact that those who fail to become more valuable are made poorer is a driver in the economy.
They are a driver in that the poor still need things. Thus capitalists seek ways to serve those needs- providing low-cost alternatives to higher-cost goods. Since the rich didn't get that way by wasting money, they often *also* seize on these lower-cost alternatives, further enriching society in general.
They are a driver in that, absent some perverse incentive, the poor are encouraged by their very "poor-ness" (virtually no one in the USA is "in poverty") to become more valuable. As they strive to become more valuable, more value is added to the economy, and everyone (including the "poor") benefit.
They are a driver in that, being currently less valuable than others, they can provide low-cost services. A fry-guy job at QuickyBurger for $7.50/hr is better than no job for $0.00/hr. By providing those low cost services, the "poor" make services cheaper than they otherwise would be AND make themselves more valuable.
Considered another way- what if there were no "income inequality?" What if, as the Democrats claim to dream, suddenly the fry-guy at QuickyBurger is making the same as a Personal Banker at MegaBank Corp, who is making the same as a software developer for MegaSoft Industries.
Well then, what personal value is it for someone to put forth the effort to become a banker or a software developer? Being a fry-guy isn't the most rewarding career, but it's certainly much easier with far less stress (in general) than being a banker or a software developer. Why pay for certifications or go to school for 4+ years when doing so will have no benefit? I mean, I can pay several hundred to a couple thousand dollars for classes and certification (to tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree), but then I'm making the same amount as the fry-guy. What's the point?
For there to be software developers and bankers and electricians and so forth to have any incentive to learn those trades, there must be some value to them. That is, there must be the promise of more income than they'd get as the fry-guy. In short, the "challenge" to "remove income inequality" is the quest to destroy an economy- to make an "economy" full of fry-guys and empty of bankers, software developers, and electricians.
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Monday, December 9, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
NBC - "Charity is Bad"
Apparently, to the intellectual vapor-weights at NBC, Government Welfare is good, but private charity is bad. That is the only take-away I can get from this piece about the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion. You see, since Texas is a low tax, low spending, low regulation state, most of the victims of the blast are having to *gasp* rely on relatives, friends, and their community to get back on their feet.
Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.
If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?
Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here. Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West? Charitable contributions are pouring in. Even NBC acknowledges that. No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out. By way of example:
No. Calls. For. Assistance.
And somehow this is bad?
Of course it is. If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business. We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something. Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.
In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care. Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay. Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same. For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.
But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing. Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.
Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.
If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?
Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here. Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West? Charitable contributions are pouring in. Even NBC acknowledges that. No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out. By way of example:
“I haven’t had any calls requesting assistance,” said Eva Cruz Hamby, who heads health services for McLennan County.
No. Calls. For. Assistance.
And somehow this is bad?
Of course it is. If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business. We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something. Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.
In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care. Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay. Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same. For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.
But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing. Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Refreshing Honesty
Here, go read this. No, really, go read it. I'll wait.
...
...
Nope, I'm still here. You finish it.
...
...
Okay, back? Good.
Now, I could go on all day about "well of course insurers are finding ways to avoid the costly increases in Obamacare." I could even point out that that was the point of Obamacare (as it was advertised)- to make insurers do things to keep costs down. It's just that in this case what they're "doing to keep costs down" is engaging in a little creative problem solving and avoiding the very law that was supposed to make things so super-duper inexpensive (but which is really making insurance rates explode).
But I won't.
I wanted to point out these little nuggets:
That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.
Wait... what? I thought we were told that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan." "Government efforts to remake the insurance market" sure doesn't sound like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan," to me. Well, maybe I'm missing something. Let's keep looking.
Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.
Wait... what? I thought the people who couldn't afford insurance coverage were the "younger" crowd. Isn't that why my insurance now has to offer coverage to my "dependents" until they're 26? Because somehow this "younger and healthier" set couldn't get insurance. I was told that they wouldn't really be subsidizing the sick and elderly, because the sick would go on exchanges, and the elderly were going to get Medicare anyway. You mean that isn't happening?
"This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."
You mean those exchanges that don't exist? Yeah, I can see this being terrible for them. Moreover, "cherry-pick[ing] some healthy people" does not "[raise] prices for everyone else." Healthy people do not cause insurance rates to rise. Sick ones do.
Beyond that, why should we be concerned about "undermining" any Federal Law? Isn't the Federal Government supposed to serve us? Shouldn't they be more concerned about undermining our Liberty? It seems not.
Now, I could go on, but the real "problem" that's being danced around here is this one:
"We want to get as many people as possible into the exchange," Savage said. "I think having renewals go deep into 2014 is counterproductive to the goals of the federal healthcare law."
That's some refreshing honesty right there. They want to destroy private insurance. They want Government to run insurance And once Government decides what care you can receive- far more pervasively than any private insurer could- Government owns you.
I don't feel like being owned.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Liberal Locusts
No, not grasshoppers. Locusts.
Yesterday, I talked about liberals being the prison guards (and sometimes willful prisoners) in Socrates' Cavern. Today, I want to look at the idea of Liberals as Locusts.
What do I mean? Well, like Locusts, Liberals (especially Rich Liberals, but all of them really) like Big Government. They vote for big government, and a huge welfare state. As a result, the government then hikes taxes, and institutes all kinds of nanny-state regulations, strangling business. Eventually (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly) the state begins to fail, all of the resources have been exploited, and Liberals move on to the next state.
For instance: in the 60's, California was a relatively Conservative state. Ronald Reagan was Governor there beginning in 1967 (elected in 66). He enacted welfare reform (which increased benefits, but decreased recipients). Reagan was then succeeded by Jerry Brown (yes, that Jerry Brown) in 1974. Thus began the swift decline of California. Taxes went up, services went up, taxes went up some more. And now businesses and "the rich" are fleeing California in droves.
If this were the only example, it might be accepted as an anomaly. It is not the only example, however.
In the 1990s and early 2000s (and probably before) Colorado was a fairly conservative state. They voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, for example. However, during those years many of those same Californians fleeing the decline of their State saw Colorado as a prosperous state, and decided they wanted some of that. So they moved there. Lucky for Colorado, they had already passed a Constitutional Amendment capping growth in Government Spending. Nevertheless, Colorado, once a reliable Red State, is now reliably blue. They voted overturned their Republican majorities in 2006. In 2008 and 2012 they voted for Barack Obama.
The amount of damage Colorado can suffer (currently) is fairly low. Because of that prior law, there's only so much money the State has to spend, which limits the monkeying with their taxes somewhat. All it takes, though, is a repeal of that Amendment, and the Democrats will be truly loosed on the State.
We can look to the East as well. New York Liberals are fleeing to Florida, making it more Liberal as well.
In both of these cases, when they finally use up all the resources there, they will look elsewhere. Perhaps my own Texas. Perhaps Oklahoma.
This is part of the Liberal Ideology. I don't believe there is any specific plan, here, but it is inherent in how Liberals think. They believe they are entitled to all of these "services" and so force the Government (really: other taxpayers) to provide them. When there is no more wherewithal to provide them, or the cost to themselves gets too high, they move on. And they never learn that the only thing not changing in all of this is their own policies.
Yesterday, I talked about liberals being the prison guards (and sometimes willful prisoners) in Socrates' Cavern. Today, I want to look at the idea of Liberals as Locusts.
What do I mean? Well, like Locusts, Liberals (especially Rich Liberals, but all of them really) like Big Government. They vote for big government, and a huge welfare state. As a result, the government then hikes taxes, and institutes all kinds of nanny-state regulations, strangling business. Eventually (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly) the state begins to fail, all of the resources have been exploited, and Liberals move on to the next state.
For instance: in the 60's, California was a relatively Conservative state. Ronald Reagan was Governor there beginning in 1967 (elected in 66). He enacted welfare reform (which increased benefits, but decreased recipients). Reagan was then succeeded by Jerry Brown (yes, that Jerry Brown) in 1974. Thus began the swift decline of California. Taxes went up, services went up, taxes went up some more. And now businesses and "the rich" are fleeing California in droves.
If this were the only example, it might be accepted as an anomaly. It is not the only example, however.
In the 1990s and early 2000s (and probably before) Colorado was a fairly conservative state. They voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, for example. However, during those years many of those same Californians fleeing the decline of their State saw Colorado as a prosperous state, and decided they wanted some of that. So they moved there. Lucky for Colorado, they had already passed a Constitutional Amendment capping growth in Government Spending. Nevertheless, Colorado, once a reliable Red State, is now reliably blue. They voted overturned their Republican majorities in 2006. In 2008 and 2012 they voted for Barack Obama.
The amount of damage Colorado can suffer (currently) is fairly low. Because of that prior law, there's only so much money the State has to spend, which limits the monkeying with their taxes somewhat. All it takes, though, is a repeal of that Amendment, and the Democrats will be truly loosed on the State.
We can look to the East as well. New York Liberals are fleeing to Florida, making it more Liberal as well.
In both of these cases, when they finally use up all the resources there, they will look elsewhere. Perhaps my own Texas. Perhaps Oklahoma.
This is part of the Liberal Ideology. I don't believe there is any specific plan, here, but it is inherent in how Liberals think. They believe they are entitled to all of these "services" and so force the Government (really: other taxpayers) to provide them. When there is no more wherewithal to provide them, or the cost to themselves gets too high, they move on. And they never learn that the only thing not changing in all of this is their own policies.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Conservatives, Liberals, and Socrates' Cave
In Plato's Republic, he relates a (probably fictional) story about a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates postulates a set of prisoners bound in such a way that they had to face a wall on which shadows of the real world played out. He first posited that those prisoners, raised thus from birth, would believe what they were seeing to be "the real world." He further expounded on the difficulties if just one of those prisoners was let free, and then even compelled to see more and more of the real world. Finally, he suggested what would happen if that prisoner, finally having acclimated to the world outside the cave, returned to that cave to try to educate the other prisoners.
The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good. Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post. I'll wait.
...
...
...
Good. You're back.
I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding. People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave. The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position).
Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large). We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment. At first it was painful and frustrating. The world shouldn't work like this. The world didn't work like this. But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.
Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps. The first are the prison guards. They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round. The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is. They want people to remain ignorant. I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives. Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world. Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.
The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge. They know what the real world is. However it happened, they are not in the cave. Some of them escaped. Others were never in the cave to begin with. But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind. They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons. Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous. Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how. Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.
The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them. They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy. They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections. They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are. If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.
Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards. They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on. Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles. They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil"). For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark.
The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up. They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people." They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success." They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.
The Wikipedia article on the story is pretty good. Go check it out before you get to the rest of this post. I'll wait.
...
...
...
Good. You're back.
I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day, but I was, and I think I hit on a glimmer of understanding. People, in general, are those prisoners in the cave. The Media (by and large) are the ones who stoke the fire, decide what order people cross the bridge, and who make sure the prisoners don't break free on their own (not a hard thing to do, once they're acclimated to their position).
Conservatives are that prisoner (by and large). We have, by whatever means, broken free from that imprisonment. At first it was painful and frustrating. The world shouldn't work like this. The world didn't work like this. But, as time passed and we re-verified our new perceptions, we came to accept the real world for what it is.
Liberals, on the other hand, fall into two or three camps. The first are the prison guards. They are in league with the Media (actually, the other way 'round. The Media is beholden to them), and like the situation as it is. They want people to remain ignorant. I won't even say that all of them have wholly nefarious motives. Some of them really believe that "ignorance is bliss" and that those prisoners "aren't capable" of understanding/coping with/dealing with the real world. Many of them, however, like the power they exert for its own sake.
The second set of liberals are the people walking on the bridge. They know what the real world is. However it happened, they are not in the cave. Some of them escaped. Others were never in the cave to begin with. But they never think of the people in the cave unless something happens to bring them sharply to mind. They support the prison guards for a variety of reasons. Some of them believe that the prisoners are dangerous- why, they wouldn't be prisoners if they weren't dangerous. Some of them believe that the prisoners "deserve it" somehow- they'd never be able to tell you how. Still others believe that if the prisoners were loosed, their own station would suffer.
The third set of liberals are the prisoners themselves, or are a subset of them. They are comfortable with what they know, and any attempt to instruct them otherwise is heresy. They believe that conservatives are crazy, and that our tales of the real world are fanciful, even deranged, projections. They don't believe in the prison guards, because they've never seen them for what they are. If they give any thought to the possible existence of the guards, they assume that the guards have their best interests at heart, or are doing what they're doing for some justified reason.
Democrat politicians and the Major Media Outlets are the prison guards. They have allowed some to be free in the sure knowledge that those can be counted on. Hollywood "limousine Liberals" and other Celebrity liberals/moderates are the people carrying the bundles. They know how the world works, because it works that way for them especially (Hollywood gets far more targeted tax breaks (read: any) than "Big Oil"). For their various reasons they either don't consider the plight of the prisoners to be something worth worrying about, or (worse) they believe that it is good for them for people to remain in the dark.
The few principled liberals (about as common as a Conservative Democrat) are the liberals still chained up. They believe that (for instance) Government should "take care of the people." They believe the trite that "hard work should always lead to success." They believe, deep down, in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Any attempt to warn them, to teach them, to give even the most minor shake to their illusion will be met with hostility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)