Steve Horwitz is on a roll! In this blog post, he presents Census Bureau data showing that America’s poor people continue to get richer — and are positively wealthy compared to the typical American of the early 1970s.
The Poor Get Richer
Share
Previous post: The Science of Minimum-Wage Legislation
Next post: Pinko
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 99 comments }
← Previous Comments
Oh, thanks. Every once in a while I still have a go, but mostly I've learned not to attempt to reason with people as dumb as the heal of my shoe. At least he didn't spread his mental diarrhea to Horowitz's blog and we can still enjoy reading and learning from the original posts and comment section there.
well, you just can't get no satisfaction.
Actually, he did. But please keep on coming by.
May I come, too, if I promise to behave myself?
“…one and the same with the political class.”
That was Marx's short term objective as well, politicization of the workers. In my opinion, it was also his mistake, and an enormous mistake at that. The problem is that productive behavior and political behavior are diametrically opposed. The productive person is a creator and a trader who treats other individuals with respect. The political person is a manipulator and an exploiter who treats other individuals as tools to be used in the achievement of objectives designed by the elite. In other words, to make a productive person political would be to destroy everything that makes him what he is – which is exactly what happened in those parts of the world foolish enough to give it a try. What I propose is the exact opposite – to make the political class productive – in other words, to eliminate the political class by replacing it with productive civil servants who do what they are paid to do, and only what they are paid to do.
First of all 3 of those countries are more like city-states. They all have universal health care and in no way are set up as libertarian societies or economies.
The rest of the questions remain unanswered. There are no libertarian societies because they don't work, no one wants them and they are inequitable and inefficient.
Also logically they would lead to accumulation of property by a minority and ultimately serfdom. All of history , slavery and serfdom and totalitarianism ARE out growths of NOT having a government to by the people to protect their interests against the elites. Libertarianism has no answer to this problem.
You've been busily commenting all over the Cafe, except in direct response to these questions posed to you by Steve_O:
Why do you need the taxpayers to fund your credit operation? Why can't you create your own bank, muirbank, where you give out credit to poor people at low interest? Why must you rob me to feel good about yourself?
Quack… Quack… Quack…
“First of all 3 of those countries are more like city-states.”
Irrelevant.
“They all have universal health care…”
Yea? So? Chile also has privatized social security. What's your point? You're an idiot if you're arguing these places have grown economically due to universal healthcare.
“…and in no way are set up as libertarian societies or economies.”
um… you've argued on many occasions that the US has followed “libertarian” policies since Reagan. According to the Frazer institute's Economic Freedom of the World Hong Kong and Singapore are numbers 1 and 2. Chile also ranked better than the US at #5. So compared to the US… they are.
Steve_O, who I'm sure is a fine upstanding gentleman, is not me I'm afraid.
Kaching! Since Reagan Revolution, economy has been working only for people like Al Gore, George Soros, Jeffrey Immelt, Bernie Madoff ( major democratic party campaign contributor ), Warren Buffet, Serge Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates – all champions of unbridled markets.
Muir, you are so wonderful. Mmmmmwaaaaahhhhh!
Muir, Mmmmwwwwaaahhh,
I'm sure gap between Al Gore and rest of the population has widened. We have data on our side – practically all of the 900 billionaires are on our side. I like you – because you never ask the question – Cui bono?
How about taking the private jet to Exit Glacier next year. A trip to see the northern lights. We have to pass regulations to keep the proles out of Santa's backyard.
muirgeo,
I'm trying to focus tightly on one specific statement of yours. Because we don't agree about much, if we want progress we need to pin things down and move step by boring step. So:
“Is that because of Libertarian politics up to that point in time (2005)?”
You've just written that there's never been a libertarian society, never can be, etc. so that would probably mean that our society doesn't ascribe to many libertarian policies. I linked to the Balko piece because it shows how a run-of-the-mill libertarian would be so disaffected by Bush's actions and policies, that he would be UNABLE TO RECOMMEND HIM OVER KERRY. In it, he cited lots of evidence about how Bush was counter-liberty. So, Balko agrees with you. We don't have a very libertarian society and the party of Goldwater has almost no connection to Goldwater. How is it that the libertarian policies of the 2000s lead to the crash (re-read the Balko piece if you find yourself straying). And don't give me some retarded shit about Greenspan. Most of this board would call a central bank a criminal usurpation of power.
Yes but I can point to many policy changes that progressives would NOT support and libertarians would support that ultimately set the tone for the economy.
So the argument was that policy changes were MORE in the direction of libertarian principles and further away from progressive principles.
So deregulation like getting rid of Glass Steagal, Greenspans non-enforcement tone and massive tax cuts libertarians would support while progressives would. There are many more a lot of which where Supreme Court decisions that consistently favored corporations over individuals. So no there wasn't a full on libertarian society but a push more in that direction then in the progressive direction.
And things are further complicated because as you get more concentration of wealth you get more concentration of power and infiltration of the government by people with money who now make non-libertarian (think TARP) decisions that you won't claim as yours.
But ultimately libertarian policies result in wealthy people controlling both the economy and policy.
But indeed many of the worse policies like the Iraq war and government cronyism we might both agree on as being bad.
Oops! Sorry Robert!
“…ultimately libertarian policies result in wealthy people controlling both the economy and policy.”
Probably. Can you point to any time in history when this has not been true? And do you seriously believe that it is not true under our current Progressive regime? So the question is what do the wealthy people who control the economy and the policies do? And we come around again to the need for a limited government. Its the only way to stop the exploitation.
P.S. I would much rather work for a rich libertarian capitalist than a rich progressive exploiter. The capitalists pay better and don't try to tell me how to live my life.
Why do you guys so often allow muirgeo to become the center of attention at Cafe Hayek? Is there any possibility that his perception will ever be changed? Is there any possibility that he will ever change your views? So what's the point?
muirgeo: The only way to win is not to play.
The answer to your rhetorical question is “no”. Worse, he doesn't have a clear idea of what his own views are and he's incapable of understanding either himself or anyone else – let alone changing anything.
The answer to your your last question is that one way to pass the time while digesting an enormous Thanksgiving feast is to place a small laptop on your distended belly and toy with the village idiot.
The answer to your rhetorical question is “no”. Worse, he doesn't have a clear idea of what his own views are and he's incapable of understanding either himself or anyone else – let alone changing anything.
The answer to your your last question is that one way to pass the time while digesting an enormous Thanksgiving feast is to place a small laptop on your distended belly and toy with the village idiot.
The reason why there are no libertarian societies is because there are always those who want to use force upon others, and there are fools like you who support them.
The reason why there are no libertarian societies is because there are always those who want to use force upon others, and there are fools like you who support them.
What the lefties don't want you to know is that their social engineering is responsible for the current mess. Threaten lenders with legal action if they don't boost lending levels to subprime borrowers….yeah, that's the ticket! Get that home ownership rate up to give the illusion of “fairness”, that way we can take credit for it without having to take the blame for the subsequent foreclosures that are inevitable. Then, we surely cant' let the “crisis” go to waste. We can get out of debt by tripling down on the debt, all in the name of “saving” the economy. Yeah, that IS the ticket! Oh boy! My very own slush fund for every Marxist-Socialist program we can think of. I'm so excited, I almost wet myself.
A lovely series of irrelevant charts and non-sequiturs. Keep trying, though. You might actually be able to make a point sometime.
Because we deregulated the economy (somewhat).
Excellent rebuttal.
OK, take your own advice by getting this through your own thick head. There are winners and there are losers in EVERY system. However, there is only one system in which those that deserve to win actually DO. That is, they system that rewards effort and ingenuity vice sloth. If I have to point out which system that is, then there is absolutely no hope for you. If you want to fall back on the leftist catch-all of social or economic “justice”, you will be in further danger of losing the high ground because there is no way to logically argue that it's moral to forcibly confiscate the fruits of one's labor and give to another that did not participate in kind. The fatal flaw of Socialism is that it completely ignores human nature by distorting or outright removing incentives. It's really not so complicated.
OK! I see where you've wandered off the beaten path. You believe that libertarianism means NO government vice minimal government. That's not what anyone here is saying. Government's only function is to prevent anarchy. Why would it be so hard to open a business under that scenario? Answer: it wouldn't. All government has to do is to keep this guy's shop from getting robbed or destroyed. Otherwise, it lets the chips fall where they may. As for Somalia, there actually IS a government, a very CORRUPT one that is as likely to loot a business as any pirate yet is too weak to perform its one and only function…maintaining order.
Do you realize that the top 5% of all wage earners pay almost 40% of all taxes? Does that not make your jaw drop? The progressive income tax is straight out of the “fertile mind” of Karl Marx. I would much rather have a flat tax of around 20% for everyone than this abortion of a tax code that we currently have. Every citizen MUST have some skin in the game. Otherwise, every loser in town will vote for the bureaucrat that promises the most freebies. We're seeing that play out before our very eyes.
Do you actually know any of these people personally on this board? I hope so, because you spend so much time attacking their personal traits that you must be intimately familiar with them. Please tell me that you do. Otherwise, the casual observer might be tempted to see that your arguments are so weak that they can only be defended through the use of ad hominem attacks on others. OK, so which is it?
Once again….it promotes liberty and efficiency through the direct reward of individual effort. It's not a difficult concept. On the flip side, how can you possibly make the case that a group of government bureaucrats can POSSIBLY make better decisions than the collective opinions of the public? Answer: you can't. Throughout history, there has NEVER been a successful centrally planned economy. Ever. Why would you want to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again?
I think you don't think. Inane is about right, in this case.
By inequitable, I assume you are talking about equality of outcome vice equality of opportunity. And therein lies the rub….redistribution of wealth is by definition is itself inequitable because it falsely rewards those that don't provide equal inputs. Simple as that.
That's exactly right. Anyone that thinks the U.S. has recently practiced libertarianism is either dishonest, blind, or purely a fool. The phrase “compassionate conservatism” is nothing more than liberalism hiding behind a conservative persona. A Libertarian would not have introduced the (until now) largest entitlement program since the Raw Deal of the 1930s, the Prescription Drug Program. And no Libertarian would have gone a full first term without vetoing a single spending bill. The 2000s were a lot of things, but Libertarian isn't one of them.
After the tax cuts were enacted, gross tax receipts skyrocketed, setting a record in 2006. Let me translate for you. In 2006, Uncle Sam collected more money than ever, in the history of the United State, since Day 1. The problem is that it also spent much more on those very same alleged “safety nets” that are actually going broke and sending us to the poor house. Tax policy has a HUGE affect on business activity (yes, some level of taxation is necessary), but a growing welfare state is proven to be the road to national bankruptcy. Period.
Amen!
What the lefties don't want you to know is that their social engineering is responsible for the current mess. Threaten lenders with legal action if they don't boost lending levels to subprime borrowers….yeah, that's the ticket! Get that home ownership rate up to give the illusion of “fairness”, that way we can take credit for it without having to take the blame for the subsequent foreclosures that are inevitable. Then, we surely cant' let the “crisis” go to waste. We can get out of debt by tripling down on the debt, all in the name of “saving” the economy. Yeah, that IS the ticket! Oh boy! My very own slush fund for every Marxist-Socialist program we can think of. I'm so excited, I almost wet myself.
A lovely series of irrelevant charts and non-sequiturs. Keep trying, though. You might actually be able to make a point sometime.
Because we deregulated the economy (somewhat).
Excellent rebuttal.
OK, take your own advice by getting this through your own thick head. There are winners and there are losers in EVERY system. However, there is only one system in which those that deserve to win actually DO. That is, they system that rewards effort and ingenuity vice sloth. If I have to point out which system that is, then there is absolutely no hope for you. If you want to fall back on the leftist catch-all of social or economic “justice”, you will be in further danger of losing the high ground because there is no way to logically argue that it's moral to forcibly confiscate the fruits of one's labor and give to another that did not participate in kind. The fatal flaw of Socialism is that it completely ignores human nature by distorting or outright removing incentives. It's really not so complicated.
OK! I see where you've wandered off the beaten path. You believe that libertarianism means NO government vice minimal government. That's not what anyone here is saying. Government's only function is to prevent anarchy. Why would it be so hard to open a business under that scenario? Answer: it wouldn't. All government has to do is to keep this guy's shop from getting robbed or destroyed. Otherwise, it lets the chips fall where they may. As for Somalia, there actually IS a government, a very CORRUPT one that is as likely to loot a business as any pirate yet is too weak to perform its one and only function…maintaining order.
Do you realize that the top 5% of all wage earners pay almost 40% of all taxes? Does that not make your jaw drop? The progressive income tax is straight out of the “fertile mind” of Karl Marx. I would much rather have a flat tax of around 20% for everyone than this abortion of a tax code that we currently have. Every citizen MUST have some skin in the game. Otherwise, every loser in town will vote for the bureaucrat that promises the most freebies. We're seeing that play out before our very eyes.
Do you actually know any of these people personally on this board? I hope so, because you spend so much time attacking their personal traits that you must be intimately familiar with them. Please tell me that you do. Otherwise, the casual observer might be tempted to see that your arguments are so weak that they can only be defended through the use of ad hominem attacks on others. OK, so which is it?
Once again….it promotes liberty and efficiency through the direct reward of individual effort. It's not a difficult concept. On the flip side, how can you possibly make the case that a group of government bureaucrats can POSSIBLY make better decisions than the collective opinions of the public? Answer: you can't. Throughout history, there has NEVER been a successful centrally planned economy. Ever. Why would you want to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again?
I think you don't think. Inane is about right, in this case.
By inequitable, I assume you are talking about equality of outcome vice equality of opportunity. And therein lies the rub….redistribution of wealth is by definition is itself inequitable because it falsely rewards those that don't provide equal inputs. Simple as that.
That's exactly right. Anyone that thinks the U.S. has recently practiced libertarianism is either dishonest, blind, or purely a fool. The phrase “compassionate conservatism” is nothing more than liberalism hiding behind a conservative persona. A Libertarian would not have introduced the (until now) largest entitlement program since the Raw Deal of the 1930s, the Prescription Drug Program. And no Libertarian would have gone a full first term without vetoing a single spending bill. The 2000s were a lot of things, but Libertarian isn't one of them.
After the tax cuts were enacted, gross tax receipts skyrocketed, setting a record in 2006. Let me translate for you. In 2006, Uncle Sam collected more money than ever, in the history of the United State, since Day 1. The problem is that it also spent much more on those very same alleged “safety nets” that are actually going broke and sending us to the poor house. Tax policy has a HUGE affect on business activity (yes, some level of taxation is necessary), but a growing welfare state is proven to be the road to national bankruptcy. Period.
Amen!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.