Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Paul]

yea, Paris doesn't need Barron's money, because the Hilton name is enough to keep her rich. Got to love meritocracies.

What is the alternative? What should we do with people like Paris Hilton? I am curious.

 

[samiam5211]

What is the alternative? What should we do with people like Paris Hilton? I am curious.

I am for much higher taxes and socialism.

Income equality is more important than economic growth to me.

 

[V Chip]

The natural state of mankind is poverty.

That's a bunch of hooey. The natural state of mankind is self-sustainability -- families worked mostly agrarian or hunter-gatherer lives for most of our history with families providing for themselves and occasionally trading/bartering with others for things they could not produce. As the population grew and we moved away from this model, some people migrated to population centers for trading/buying/selling and then as some of them began to hoard wealth, poverty was born.

97% of the population was poor in the 1800s.

Source? I think you made that one up. Remember: Google is your friend (and mine, too!).

Conquering poverty is not the natural state of mankind. The wealth of western capitalist nations was created and continues to be created. Today world poverty is much less due to capitalism. This is the most prosperous time in world history. T

I think you overestimate the effect of capitalism. Two of the largest countries in population were not capitalist when their poverty rates began to decline in earnest (India and China). Those two alone affected the world's poverty rate decline far more than "western capitalist nations."

And you're right, this is the most prosperous time in world history. But you can go to almost any year in history and save for large global events (war, famine, pandemics), you can say that year was the most prosperous time in world history at that point in time.

 

[Paul]

I am for much higher taxes and socialism.

Income equality is more important than economic growth to me.

If you tax the entrepreneurial people way too much they will go elsewhere or simply give up on the idea of creating wealth. They will lose the drive to be creative and come up with innovation.

During the cold war the East German engineers built the Trabant, the worst automobile in the world. They had no incentive to build a quality car. Meanwhile, the West German engineers were building the bast cars in the world because of the economic incentive provided by capitalism.

There is no equality. Identical twins with the exact DNA often achieve differently. That would be the best case scenario for equality.

 

[V Chip]

Talent and competency is always variable from person to person. This often predicts success or lack of success in life.

And often it does not. I mean, if accumulating wealth is one's goal and they really strive for that goal maybe at the expense of other facets of their life, they are more likely to become wealthy than someone who doesn't have wealth as their goal in life. That has little to do with talent or competency and more with what one is willing to do to become wealthy.

Many people in the forum see those on top as oppressors and those at the bottom as victims. This is well ingrained and I can see why many see themselves as victims. The alternative view is much more painful.

The "alternative view" is also much more banal and without much evidence to back it up, at least vis a vis wealth and competency. History is littered with people who have worked very hard and been very competent who we don't remember the way we do the extremely wealthy.

 

[samiam5211]

If you tax the entrepreneurial people way too much they will go elsewhere or simply give up on the idea of creating wealth. They will lose the drive to be creative and come up with innovation.

That's just not true.

No one needs to be a billionaire. Amazon would still be around if Bezos was only making 1,000,000 a year in personal profit.

 

[Paul]

That's just not true.

No one needs to be a billionaire. Amazon would still be around if Bezos was only making 1,000,000 a year in personal profit.

Most people need to be motivated to work hard and be creative. It is no accident that capitalist nations generate much more wealth than socialist nations. BTW, capitalism in itself has no magical. Capitalism simply provides fertile ground for the talented and creative people to generate wealth. If there is no incentive or motivation very little wealth is created. That is why the East Germans built the Trabant and the West Germans built the BMW and Mercedes.

Once again you compare the average Joe Blow to a billionaire. How many Bezos types are in the world? Not many!

 

[samiam5211]

Most people need to be motivated to work hard and be creative. It is no accident that capitalist nations generate much more wealth than socialist nations. BTW, capitalism in itself has no magical. Capitalism simply provides fertile ground for the talented and creative people to generate wealth. If there is no incentive or motivation very little wealth is created. That is why the East Germans built the Trabant and the West Germans built the BMW and Mercedes.

Once again you compare the average Joe Blow to a billionaire. How many Bezos types are in the world? Not many!

It says quite a bit that you seem to thing the most efficient motivator for people is wealth.

 

[Paul]

And often it does not. I mean, if accumulating wealth is one's goal and they really strive for that goal maybe at the expense of other facets of their life, they are more likely to become wealthy than someone who doesn't have wealth as their goal in life. That has little to do with talent or competency and more with what one is willing to do to become wealthy.

Talent without drive does not lead to wealth. Talent plus drive leads to wealth.

The "alternative view" is also much more banal and without much evidence to back it up, at least vis a vis wealth and competency. History is littered with people who have worked very hard and been very competent who we don't remember the way we do the extremely wealthy.

I could make 5 billion dollars with just a thought (If my thought leads to the eradication of breast cancer). Another worker could spend a lifetime in a lab working 24/7 for years and not find the cure. There is an element of luck. Tiger Woods was awesome, but he was born to a father that trained him as a golfer since childhood. He was at the right place at the right time.

 

[V Chip]

You need to watch Bill Maher.

I disagreed with most of what you said before the clip you posted, but what else is new, eh?

But the clip is interesting. Did you catch Maher contradicting his whole point from the beginning? He talked about the better artists getting the streams and the success and the talentless ones not getting much at all. Then he ends it completely contradicting most of what he said in the video. Maher is often times smart, but he is often just full of himself and spouting his opinion without thought for cohesion or consistent logic.

 

[Paul]

It says quite a bit that you seem to thing the most efficient motivator for people is wealth.

Self satisfaction, accomplishments, freedom, curiosity, etc are also motivators. You may say this is possible in a socialist nation, but the record shows otherwise.

 

[Paul]

That's just not true.

No one needs to be a billionaire. Amazon would still be around if Bezos was only making 1,000,000 a year in personal profit.

Who are you to tell people how much money they can earn? How about freedom?

 

[UriUT]

I'd suggest that if this conversation is to continue, one party needs to understand the basic ideas of economic distribution. Otherwise, it'll just be a continual non answer sprinkled with a bunch extinction level scenarios. Like what if gravity ceases to exists, what will happen then?

I can talk to my nephew for so long about the Saints and Pelicans, but until he learns the basic rules of basketball and football, it'll be the same thing over and over. And as I'm getting older, the patience simply isn't there anymore.

 

[V Chip]

If you tax the entrepreneurial people way too much they will go elsewhere or simply give up on the idea of creating wealth. They will lose the drive to be creative and come up with innovation.

This is blatantly false. You know how we know? The entrepreneurial people who make incredible wealth tell us this isn't true. In the 50s and 60s, were entrepreneurial people leaving the US in droves? Nope. They were still creating wealth and creating innovative things and doing quite well for themselves. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now, both for businesses and individuals.

I mean sure, if you tax them at 100% they're very likely not going to work. But that's a strawman as no serious thought is being given to taxing people anywhere near that rate. The Laffer Curve does exist, it's just Laffable (pun!) that so many on the right think the curve peaks at 37%.

 

[Paul]

I'd suggest that if this conversation is to continue, one party needs to understand the basic ideas of economic distribution. Otherwise, it'll just be a continual non answer sprinkled with a bunch extinction level scenarios. Like what if gravity ceases to exists, what will happen then?

I can talk to my nephew for so long about the Saints and Pelicans, but until he learns the basic rules of basketball and football, it'll be the same thing over and over. And as I'm getting older, the patience simply isn't there anymore.

Please provide a short basic explanation.
Thanks!

 

[Paul]

This is blatantly false. You know how we know? The entrepreneurial people who make incredible wealth tell us this isn't true. In the 50s and 60s, were entrepreneurial people leaving the US in droves? Nope. They were still creating wealth and creating innovative things and doing quite well for themselves. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now, both for businesses and individuals.

I mean sure, if you tax them at 100% they're very likely not going to work. But that's a strawman as no serious thought is being given to taxing people anywhere near that rate. The Laffer Curve does exist, it's just Laffable (pun!) that so many on the right think the curve peaks at 37%.

OK, that is a good argument. If they are allowed to keep some profit they may not go. I also agree that the initial motivation is simply intellectual curiosity (I am excluding crony capitalists that create no wealth).

 

[V Chip]

Talent without drive does not lead to wealth. Talent plus drive leads to wealth.

No, you're oversimplifying things again like you did by calling shyness genetic when it is in fact about 30% genetic and 70% environment. Talent helps, indeed. Again, history is littered with talented, driven people who didn't get wealthy. You remember those that do and point to them as examples because you don't even know the hundreds or thousands more who didn't get wealthy.

 

[UriUT]

Please provide a short basic explanation.
Thanks!

Frankly, you seem to lack the basic understanding of what socialism is and what the system actually is.

For example: to make your point on incentives, you compare a communist state with a capitalist state with some "socialist" policies and believe that everyone who's not you are calling for a communist state. That's simply not true. No one here, certainly not I, are calling for the government seizures of property or labor. By the way, Reagan, hero of supply side economics, did that with the traffic controllers. You yourself, acknowledges there's a problem with wealth distribution. That's why the tax system is there amongst other things. One is to fairly redistribute wealth via social programs that helps folks reach their potential for example. Someone has already explained that to you, but I don't see any comprehension or acknowledgement out of you. Again, no one is asking for government seizures or impair incentives and innovations. As a tangent, during the 60s taxes were high relative to today. Taht's even after Kennedy's tax cut. The money was spent on a space program that if my memory was correct hit something of 10% of gdp? But you know what? the innovations that came from that spurs the riches that we have today. Government incentives for the win?????

Another is that you seem to think that a band of entrepreneurs gathering to form a corporation or anyone who gathers in something similar to a commune is a socialist. ?????? Or a person who leaves wealth to someone else is a socialist??? I mean the smurfs have one word but common now.