«

»

Progressing Toward the Victorian Era

If you ever thought that the Nanny Staters were going to stop with cigarettes and alcohol, Baylen Linnekin is here to remind you that the progressive Nanny State knows no bounds:

Earlier this year I warned in a column that food freedom – the right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat and drink the foods you want – would be “under attack” in 2014. But even I couldn’t have predicted the crushing regulatory assault that’s hit American consumers and food producers in just the first quarter of this year.

In fact, 2014 may go down as the worst year for food freedom since the New Deal era, when Congress, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Supreme Court conspired to strip Americans of many basic food rights. Just how ludicrous was that period? In 1942, the Supreme Court actually upheld a New Deal law that prohibited farmers from using wheat they grew on their own farms to bake bread to feed their own families.

While we haven’t matched that historic low yet, there are still nine months left in the year. Here are just nine examples:

I’ll leave you to click through for the examples, which includes everything from the FDA trying to ban trans fats to a government advisory committee thinking the government should text “encouraging messages” to fat people. That’s all we need: more texting spam.

Something about this story has been bothering me though and it took me a while to figure out what it was. It finally came together when I remembered that the vast majority of the Nannies are self-styled “progressives” (including Uber-Nanny Michael Bloomberg, who has now moved on to flogging gun control with truly repulsive anti-gun ads). This theme came up a couple of weeks ago in a great article by Matt Welch:

When I first started hearing people on the political left describe themselves with some frequency as progressive back in the 1990s, the term did not seem tethered to the epoch-defining, early-20th-century spasm of moral crusading and government centralization that helped give us everything from trust busting to Prohibition to the Federal Reserve. As articulated by champions like Ralph Nader and Molly Ivins, the progressive label was both a way to get out from under the generation-old baggage of liberal-a term Ronald Reagan and others had turned into an epithet-and to differentiate lefties from seemingly apologetic triangulators like Bill Clinton and that now-vanished tribe known as the New Democrats.

If you could put a date on when modern-day progressives fully re-inhabited the moral rigidity of their Progressive Era forebears, it might be September 24, 2012. That’s when Village Voice Media, the country’s biggest chain of alternative newsweeklies, split off its online classifieds site Backpage.com after a years-long, progressive-led campaign to shutter the site over claims that it facilitates “sex trafficking.”

In addition to their campaign against all sex work — not just trafficking — the progressives are campaigning against e-cigarettes. Their “fact-based” campaign includes bogus stories that e-cigs are just as dangerous as cigarettes (they aren’t). Campaigns against alcohol sales, free markets, free trade, fatty foods, regular cigarettes, sugar, guns and a host of other “evils” are proceeding apace.

It’s not just the Nanny State; puritanical attitudes infect almost all “progressive” policy. Tax policy is oriented toward attacking conspicuous consumption and “greed”. Global warming policy is oriented less around scientific approaches to the problem than around ending Western consumption. Healthcare policy is devoted to the notion that we are using too much healthcare and that has to stop. Almost every economic policy from the -so-called progressives hinges on the notion that some people simply have more wealth than is good for them.

(Needless to say, it’s always the plebs that need to sacrifice for the greater good. The elites will always still enjoy their good doctors, their private jets and their mountains of income.)

The funny thing is that puritanical attitudes are something we are always told are right wing. It is always those troglodyte conservatives who are seething with rage over the immorality of society. Surely the left wing, with their enthusiasm for abortion and gay rights, could not be described in those terms?

But it can be and it should be. Because, as I have often said, politics isn’t a spectrum, it’s a circle. If you move far enough to the left, you’ll find yourself in bed with those who are too far to the right. You might claim different motives; but in the end, you will embrace the same policies.

Think about how puritanical the progressive movement is getting. You could easily squeeze the entire progressive agenda into a campaign against five of the seven deadly sins:

  • Gluttony: Progressives support a slew of laws designed to force Americans to eat less, including mandatory calorie labeling, restrictions on sugar, making sugar a controlled substance and taxing high-calorie foods.
  • Greed: Progressives support high income tax rates, luxury taxes on expensive items and have lately been talking about how the real problem in America is wealth inequality. This is an addition to their distaste for the “greed” of free markets and their support of controlled markets.
  • Sloth: Many progressives favor mandatory “volunteerism” (as do many neo-conservatives; the Right Wing equivalent of progressives).
  • Lust: Most progressive want to keep prostitution illegal. Many would like to outlaw porn. This is a a view they share with much of the Religious Right.
  • Wrath: Our courts can give out mandatory anger management classes. And opposition to the progressive agenda is frequently written off as the rage of “angry white males”.
  • Pride and Envy don’t fit well into that but that’s probably because these are the principle sins of progressivism itself, which is consumed with envy for anyone who has “too much” and take great pride in being so enlightened compared to the antediluvian masses.

    This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed this. Back in the 90′s, the campus feminists wanted to ban porn. When I pointed out that this put them on the same page as religious zealots, they would reply that the Jerry Falwells were worried about smut; they were worried about exploitation. But I don’t see that motive matters in this scenario. Sure, you want to have a good through process when it comes to policy: a smart way of thinking about issues will lead you astray less often than a dumb one. But, practically, when your ultra-enlightened mega-sensitive thinking leads you to the same conclusions as the Playboy burners, what difference does it make? Why is banning porn because it makes Baby Jesus cry worse than banning it because it makes Gloria Steinem cringe?

    In the end, this boils to simple prudery in all its manifold manifestations. Progressive puritanism, like all puritanism, was best described Mencken as the the fear that someone somewhere may be happy. It is not new or original or enlightened or forward-thinking. You can trace it back not just to 19th century Victorian prudery but to 20th century communism, which saw all things as serving a function to the state, eschewed pleasure (for the masses anyway) and saw drab colorless lives as ideal for the plebs.

    This prudery is the result of any political philosophy that sees government as a force with which to change human nature. Whether you want government to make people less gay or make people less anti-gay, you are paying homage to the same demon idol of government power. That your pews are different colors make no practical difference to the heretics being thrown into the fire.

    I’ve had it with blue-noses of every political stripe. If they want to live like monks, more power to them. But I see no reason why we should allow them to enshrine their priggish mores into law. Whether they are grabbing our porn, our cigarettes, our booze, our hookers, our drugs, our food, our money, our sugar or our gay lovers, they are all the enemies of real freedom. And it’s time to stop pretending that one side is better because they call themselves “progressives” rather than “prudish ninnies”.

    31 comments

    No ping yet

    1. Seattle Outcast says:

      How has this not been obvious since before the very first “Earth Day?” That the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and a slew of other environmentalists admitted that they’d been lying to everyone for two decades just before the 1990′s started wasn’t enough of a wake up call? See, their motives were pure, so the ends justifies the means. Only they aren’t telling you what the end goal is until they have a collar around your neck.

      Once they have control of your health care, then every aspect of your life falls under their control as well – or did you not think that through all the way? Gotta keep costs down somehow, and since these people are all devoted to the thought that the human race is some sort of planetary virus that needs to be eradicated in order to “save the planet” you might want to get ready for enforced vegetarianism & birth control to be brought up.

      Of course, at that point we’ll already be in a civil war, and I already know which side has the most guns…

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        
    2. ilovecress says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15

        
    3. Hal_10000 says:

      No it doesn’t. That’s an Alex argument Hal, and you know that’s not true. You can disagree with economic arguments qualitatively all you like, but don’t misrepresent it. It’s just like me or CM saying that you prefer tax cuts because you hate poor people.

      The big thing in progressive circles right now is the Piketty book, which is essentially argues that we are living in a gilded age where the rich are too rich. All the discussion of income and wealth inequality and all the policy aimed at it is about bringing down the richest 1% or .01%. Yglesias’ article, which I linked last week, was right up front about it — that high marginal tax rates are about reducing the income and wealth of the wealthiest. We can argue about the merits of this idea (i.e., is too much inequality going to create social unrest, poverty, etc.). But the emphasis of progressive politics, especially over the last decade, has been about bringing down the income of the upper 1%, .01%.

      Of course motive matters. Because your reason for doing something should inform whether or not you do it. You’re against Obamacare for a number of reasons that you’ve outlined several times. But I know a guy who is against it because it’s an illuminate conspiracy. So I guess we can dismiss your opinion too?

      A reasonable point. Thanks for keeping me honest about that. :)

      But in this specific case, as it has become obvious that people are not being exploited and that porn does not create rape, many feminists remain opposed to its existence. In the end, you get back to prudery, whether that is based on religion or something else. I don’t see this as a “one person disagrees with Obama for reasonable means, the other is a conspiracy theorist” type of thing. When it comes to radical feminists and the radical right, it’s more like one person thinks Obama is serving the illuminati and the other thinks he is serving the tri-lateral commission.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        
    4. hist_ed says:

      “Almost every economic policy from the -so-called progressives hinges on the notion that some people simply have more wealth than is good for them.”

      I’d argue that it really goes to Progressives thinking that they (or their anointed experts) simply know how everyone should behave-better than the people themselves. Too much money? Well, the average progressive thinks that the government knows how to spend that money better than you (this is really the central conceit of Keynesian economics). Of course the food nannying is that idea in spades.

      The porn thing is the same: what about women who like porn? The feminists want to infantalize them: “poor little dear, you just need your consciousness raised.” Do you remember the rape crisis crap in the early 1990s? The study that “proved” that one in four college women would be sexually assaulted? Turns out that about 75% of the women the study’s authors classified as rape victims did not consider themselves rape victims. Again, the enlightened progs knew better that the poor little fragile women they were studying.

      Gotta throw out a school anecdote: Since Mrs. Obama decided that she knew what kids should be eating in their school lunches better than all the school boards, parents, principals and cooks in the US, my school has seen its lunch time garbage increase dramatically. If I remember correctly, our janitor told me that they are throwing away almost twice as much as before. All that waste has got to be bad for the planet. Al Gore should step up and start working for school food freedom now.

      Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

        
    5. hist_ed says:

      “not a regulation.”

      So your most oft repeated argument is semantic? The author screwed up and confused laws with regulations? Pretty weak.

      Myriam Webster says that a regulation is “an official rule or law that says how something should be done.”

      While political geeks know the legal difference, this doesn’t really change the thrust of the piece: government wants to control food more.

      Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

        
    6. AlexInCT says:

      How has this not been obvious since before the very first “Earth Day?” That the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and a slew of other environmentalists admitted that they’d been lying to everyone for two decades just before the 1990′s started wasn’t enough of a wake up call? See, their motives were pure, so the ends justifies the means. Only they aren’t telling you what the end goal is until they have a collar around your neck.

      There is a reason people like me have pointed out that all these “green” organizations should more aptly be referred to as watermelon-like organizations: you scratch the surface, and you find that under that thin veneer of green what you really have is some deep collectivist red. It’s always been about the agenda to spread the failed and despicable red agenda through the use of false fear of environmental Armageddon. There is a reason these groups get really pissed at the people that point out that’s their true agenda and want to destroy those that resist the watermelon agenda: it hits too close to the truth.

      Earthday would be closer to the truth if it was accompanied by the old Soviet style October military parades. All show and bluster to hide the devastation of a failed ideology.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        
    7. Seattle Outcast says:

      I first heard them (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc) referred to as “watermelons” around 1980. Cleaning up air and water contamination had been a raging success (which was no surprise – EVERYBODY wants a clean world, and the technology to get it was finally becoming available) and a few of the high priests of the church of environmentalism actually started to talk off script and let their end game out of the bag because they thought everyone was on their side now.

      Holy shit, did that ever backfire. There were a number of repudiations, lots of backpedaling, and the press was becoming compliant now that they had to contend with Reagan and they didn’t want to give the president they despised any ammunition. “Global Cooling” had fizzled out as a cause, acid rain wasn’t gaining sufficient traction due to emission regulations (though you still hear old hippies talking about it), and banning everyone from using the forests except themselves didn’t produce the compliant populace they needed. It was right about then that they decided that the next “cause” would be “global warming” because they knew the next weather cycle had kicked in and they would have a couple decades to scam everybody.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        
    8. ilovecress says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

        
    9. AlexInCT says:

      Again, it’s not about how much money the top 1% have, it’s how big the gap is between the 1% and the 2%, and if that gap is too wide for anyone to leap.

      Do I have to again repeat which party, while pretending to be obsessed with correcting this discrepancy, keeps instituting policies that do exactly the opposite? All class warfare has given us is the destruction of the middle class. It has now become obvious that the intent is to leave us with the super-rich, which I am willing to bet will all be card carrying members of the class warrior cult, and the poor, which will have a dependency on the oligarchy to live, and thus will keep them in power. At this point even the most obtuse person would admit that the game is rigged by the very people pretending to want to fix it. They have created a system that protects the ultra-wealthy and keeps out the riff-raff otherwise, unless they deign to let someone which they have vetted in. Nothing either noble or good about that shit. Tear the fucking thing down.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        
    10. Xetrov says:

      I feel like I’ve arrived!

      http://heatherwilkinsblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/inigo_montoya.jpg

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        
    11. CM says:

      I feel like I’ve arrived!

      Welcome.
      Libs are tards.
      Heresy will not be tolerated.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        
    12. AlexInCT says:

      Heresy will not be tolerated.

      Nice strawman CM, but what we will not tolerate is stupidity and abuses by scumbags pretending to care. You might have drunk deep from the Kool-Aid and actually believe that nonsense, but the credentialed oligarchy is raping us all, and I guarantee you they don’t buy it or care about it other than as a means to an end.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        
    13. ilovecress says:

      and I guarantee you they don’t buy it or care about it other than as a means to an end.

      Which is? Puritanism or greed? Team Hal or Team Alex?

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

        
    14. richtaylor365 says:

      I feel like I’ve arrived!

      Welcome.
      Libs are tards.
      Heresy will not be tolerated.

      Hmmm, stupid is not a badge of honor, at least not here. No, I’m not calling you or cress stupid, only that when criticized, just maybe it’s valid and not partisan, maybe.

      it’s how big the gap is between the 1% and the 2%, and if that gap is too wide for anyone to leap.

      Why? I’m not following you. Maybe many of that 2% don’t want to make the leap and are happy right where they are at. Really, what difference does it make how rich the 1% is, the amount of wealth they have does not affect anyone else. What difference does it make if the 1% are 100 times wealthier or 1000 times wealthier, isn’t the problem now that too many people are either at the poverty level or just above that and barely getting by? I know we have had this discussion before and never ever has been demonstrated to me how sticking it to the rich, taxing the shit out of them will somehow raise all the other boats. The goal, as I see it is to better the standard of living for those struggling, come up with suggestions for doing that and leave the rich folks alone. And if all ya got is ,”Well, it just stands to reason that because the rich are so wealthy, everyone else is struggling”, then don’t bother, such nonsense has never passed the smell test.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

        
    15. CM says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

        
    16. AlexInCT says:

      This is my point. I haven’t.

      You owe me a spleen I busted mine laughing so hard……………….

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        
    17. Seattle Outcast says:

      He didn’t drink the Kool Aid, he IS the Kool Aid…..

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        
    18. CM says:

      There it is. You refuse to even engage. Everything is immediately reduced to binary ‘you drank the koolaid’ or ‘libs are tards’. There is not even an attempt to understand what you’re arguing (because you know better, so you don’t have to waste time). Rinse and repeat.
      As I say, I’m sure you’re both very helpful to the Democratic Party.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        
    19. CM says:

      (that should have been ‘arguing against’)

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        
    20. ilovecress says:

      Rich thanks for the chance to try and explain my POV

      Why? I’m not following you. Maybe many of that 2% don’t want to make the leap and are happy right where they are at

      But what if they’re not? The aim is to make sure that the 1% club isn’t a closed shop – not to get rid of it completely. To make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be the wealthiest person on the planet, no matter where they start from. Ironically, it’s Alex’s point – if the income gap is too big to leap, then wealth (and power) remains with the same few people – hence the sinister terming of them as oligarchs.

      What difference does it make if the 1% are 100 times wealthier or 1000 times wealthier, isn’t the problem now that too many people are either at the poverty level or just above that and barely getting by?

      Without getting into whether it’s right or not, the argument is that the two are linked.

      I know we have had this discussion before and never ever has been demonstrated to me how sticking it to the rich, taxing the sh*t out of them will somehow raise all the other boats.

      Because redistribution of wealth (I know – booo!) But seriously, the idea is that if you give people spending power, then they buy, then the economy as a whole grows, and everyone gets richer. The ‘job creators’ are the consumers, not the producers. I don’t want to get into a tedious debate on whether this actually works, but surely you can at least admit its a reasonable point of view to have?

      The goal, as I see it is to better the standard of living for those struggling, come up with suggestions for doing that and leave the rich folks alone.

      Yep. Any ideas?

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        
    21. AlexInCT says:

      There it is. You refuse to even engage.

      Why would I? Once I realized I was dealing with a dyed in the wool, true believer, class warrior, I realized I had more productive ways to spend my time. if you can’t grasp the problems with this class warfare shit, that’s on you. Not me. There is nothing to debate, because all it does is provide the opportunity for the class warriors to ligitimize their theft. I wouldn’t argue the merits of child molestation with a child molester either.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        
    22. richtaylor365 says:

      But what if they’re not? The aim is to make sure that the 1% club isn’t a closed shop

      First of all, the 2% you speak of have as much money as they NEED (subjective opinion, of course) so those few that WANT more, nothing is stopping them, except maybe the government and their confiscatory tax policies. But the same cannot be said for the poor, no, their station is life is not that comfortable and would (should) be more inclined to not be satisfied and improve their station in life. I guess my point was who cares about the gap between 1% and 2%, that is meaningless compared to the gap between the rich and the poor.

      Without getting into whether it’s right or not, the argument is that the two are linked.

      I don’t think they are, why do you?

      Because redistribution of wealth (I know – booo!) But seriously, the idea is that if you give people spending power, then they buy, then the economy as a whole grows, and everyone gets richer.

      Redistribution does not work, never has. Giving people anything does not work, it is only a temporary fix, better to have them earn for themselves, better for them and better for society. We (the right) do not like wealth distribution because it is punitive to the tax payer, and does not solve the poverty problems that the givers find themselves mired in.

      I don’t want to get into a tedious debate on whether this actually works, but surely you can at least admit its a reasonable point of view to have?

      No, I don’t think it is reasonable,for the reasons already mentioned. The true job creators are the folks (mostly small business owners that already employ people) that want to expand their business and translate this out to it’s natural progression, to those large corporations that also want to expand. The government can play a massive role in job creation, basically by getting out of the way and allowing entrepreneurs to do what they do best. If the government provides a business friendly climate (low corporate tax rate, eased regulations and timely interaction with permits and licenses) the natural free market job creators will go crazy and solve the unemployment problem.

      Yep. Any ideas?

      Yes, lots, but I’m just on my way out the door. I will post something on this later.

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

        
    23. Iconoclast says:

      Because redistribution of wealth (I know – booo!) But seriously, the idea is that if you give people spending power, then they buy, then the economy as a whole grows, and everyone gets richer. The ‘job creators’ are the consumers, not the producers. I don’t want to get into a tedious debate on whether this actually works, but surely you can at least admit its a reasonable point of view to have?

      Only if you consider “reasonable” and “short-sighted” to be synonymous. As Rich has already explained, this only rewards laziness and sloth while punishing productivity. That money you want to give away has to come from someone, presumably someone with actual income. What you have described is a variation of the broken window fallacy, which is why I consider it short-sighted.

      Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        
    24. AlexInCT says:

      Redistribution does not work, never has.

      ^^^^THIS^^^^

      What this shit has allowed though is the people in charge of the corrupt system to control not just who gets into the exclusive club, but to actually punish the people they don’t like, all while rewarding those they do. It has never been anything but a mechanism to allow corrupt and evil fucks, under the pretense of doing good, to play god, and it sucks.

      The left loves this redistributive system because they are driven by envy and the desire to knock down anyone that ignores the fact that to succeed you need their permission. This is not about helping anyone, but about making sure upstarts know their place. What we basically have, yet again I say, is the midlevel system of nobility and serfdom. The class warfare espousing politicians that have abrogated all power to themselves and have control over who gets to win and who must lose, are the nobles. The rest of us are there in the role of the serfs: we get to prosper based on what our masters will allow us, and we are basically taken down if we displease them. It is a despicable system.

      Fuck all you class warriors and the horse you rode in on.

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

        
    25. Hal_10000 says:

      There’s been some discussion lately, oddly stimulated by some sensible things Krugman said, that one of the big problems with inequality is the “supersalaries”. That with global reach of communications, you have, for example, many musicians struggling to make ends meet while a tiny percentage make it big. The big change over the last 40 years is that now they make it REALLY big.

      One point that gets lost is that income mobility is as high as it ever was. While the 1% (or more precisely the .01%) are at higher level than ever, the odds of someone getting into that over the course of their life are not that bad. In fact, most people will spend at least one year in the upper income tax brackets.

      http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2014/04/transitory-income-and-one-percent.html

      It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution….
      It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60)….
      Rather than talking about the 1 percent and the 99 percent as if they were forever fixed, it would make much more sense to talk about the fact that Americans are likely to be exposed to both prosperity and poverty during their lives, and to shape our policies accordingly. As such, we have much more in common with one another than we dare to realize.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        
    26. Hal_10000 says:

      Additionally, all income inequality figures need to be taken with some salt. They are based on pre-tax income so that excluded all benefits (e.g., health insurance, which is a whopping part of most people’s pay) and all tax codes that are designed to reduce inequality (e.g., EITC).

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        
    27. ilovecress says:

      Redistribution does not work, never has.

      No, I don’t think it is reasonable,for the reasons already mentioned

      As Rich has already explained, this only rewards laziness and sloth while punishing productivity.

      So let’s talk about motivation and get back to the topic then. If, as you claim, its irrefutable that redistributive economic policies don’t work – then why do so many politicians and economists advocate for them? If here on this blog you’ve got economics all figured out, and it is 100% sure that redistribution doesn’t work – then there are a few options as to why some people are still arguing for it.

      The Alex argument from this thread – they secretly know that it doesn’t work and that’s the point. They are trying to use these policies to actually increase the inequality, and keep themselves in power.

      The Alex argument version 2 also from this thread – they are driven by envy and jealousy of rich people making it.

      The Hal argument from this post – they are against greed as a moral failing and want to somehow ‘regulate it’

      The Tards argument – They are all mentally deficient, but have somehow tricked their way into influential positions.

      Or maybe (and I’m just Occams Razoring here) – The issue of how best to run a global economy isn’t simple, and doesn’t have a single answer, and lots of very reasonable people disagree on the best way forward.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        
    28. richtaylor365 says:

      its irrefutable that redistributive economic policies don’t work – then why do so many politicians and economists advocate for them?

      You really have to ask that? For a politician it is rather obvious, nothing translates into votes (and power) more than promising voters free stuff. Politicians have perverted concepts like “equity” and “fairness” solely to pander, come on, you know that, right? For the occasional economist (not as many as you think) that subscribes to Keynesian economics,as the old saying goes ,”That’s their problem” since the experiment has been tried and failed.

      If here on this blog you’ve got economics all figured out

      Who here has copped to having economics “all figured out”? Certainly not me, I have an opinion based mostly on the success/failure rate of what has been tried in the past, that, and a rudimentary concept of human nature.

      and it is 100% sure that redistribution doesn’t work

      OK, convince us that it does. Explain to us how taking from producers, the income earners (those that contribute to society) and giving to those that don’t work, don’t generate capital on their own but just consume, how on earth is this a benefit to society? And don’t retort with ,”We can’t have people starving in the streets”, a total non sequitur. In a free market society income earners pay taxes to keep the government running, they don’t pay taxes to subsidize those that don’t earn income. We can talk about the war on poverty and how communism has never ever worked, but the bottom line is that people resent working when others don’t have to, they resent paying for the profligate lifestyle of others, and they damn sure resent a punitive confiscatory tax system that punishes achievement and rewards indolence.

      Or maybe (and I’m just Occams Razoring here) – The issue of how best to run a global economy isn’t simple, and doesn’t have a single answer, and lots of very reasonable people disagree on the best way forward.

      Again, nobody here said it was simple or that reasonable people can’t disagree, but I’ve written enough posts here about how lowering tax rates spurs economic growth, the proof is in the pudding, all these other high folutin’ progressive (we need to make the rich pay their fair share) gimmicks do nothing but foment class envy,oh, and it also buys elections.

      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

        
    29. Xetrov says:

      The “poor” that I know in America have iPhones, iPads, cable TV, two cars, a swimming pool in their back yards, and just got north of $10,000 back on taxes that they never paid. The “poor” are doing just fine thanks to redistribution policies already in effect.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        
    30. ilovecress says:

      The “poor” that I know in America have iPhones, iPads, cable TV, two cars, a swimming pool in their back yards, and just got north of $10,000 back on taxes that they never paid. The “poor” are doing just fine thanks to redistribution policies already in effect.

      Obamas economic policy seems to be right on the money then?

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        
    31. AlexInCT says:

      Obamas economic policy seems to be right on the money then?

      If your point is that Obama’s economic policy is to make the supposedly poor know what it is like to be real poor, destroy the middle class, and help those credentialed ultra-rich elite he hobnobs with get even richer, then you got it right. But if you attempt was to pretend that the American poor have it so good because of Obama, I would implore you to seek medical help with that mental condition. It’s life threatening.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        

    Comments have been disabled.