Who Speaks for ‘The People’?

I think the business of government is to ensure that the CEO's of corporations are never impeded in their looting of the American people. The Supreme Ct. has continued to follow this policy with its recent ruling that money = speech, and that corporations are indistinguishable from real people. Let the looting go higher; make the pie higher.

Government can create jobs by reducing the burden on businesses; cut minimum wage, social security, welfare & unemployment benefits; eliminate this ideology that the most productive class are lavish spending scum to be taxed excessively high in order to feed these programs which give incentives not to work. These are a few ways government can create jobs; call it destructive creation--destroy some of the government, create jobs

...go back a couple centuries if you want people to worship business.

Otherwise, forget about it.

yes, since the 1700s were the peak of free-market capitalism. Its hard arguing with someone so well versed in history

I know a lot of people who want the government to create jobs. More precisely, they want the government to create value-added jobs during the recession; that is, create wealth.

I want to ride a flying pink unicorn to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. May we all get what we want.

I've always wondered who "The People" are. Never met them. I've met a host of individuals, many claiming to speak for a group of people, but I've never met "The People". I find that there are individuals who claim to speak for groups of which I am a part, but they do not speak for me.

Who is "The People" anyway?

The cool thing about "speaking for a class" is that it is an equal opportunity form of propaganda... or counter propaganda. They do it all the time, but so can I. The classes that they use are completely arbitrary, and so are those that I use. But it doesn't matter. Once people are accustomed to thinking in terms of class, they will respond to an argument to class. The progressives have trained the population well, but we can use that to bring them down - a new take on the old saying that "all the best atheists were trained by the Jesuits".

I don't know - whatever political strategies you can dream up around JohnK's point, and whatever the challenges of getting a handle on what "the people" are doesn't change the fact that the state needs to serve the interests of 300 million or so individuals living north of Mexico and south of Canada. I think people get too hung up on this point JohnK is making. Of course we should be skeptical of those claiming to speak for "the people", and of course it's not an easy thing to talk about intelligently. But that doesn't change the reality of those 300 million lives and the effect that the state has on their lives.

"... But that doesn't change the reality of those 300 million lives and the effect that the state has on their lives."

I think you meant "affect" -- but knowing your political beliefs, I may be wrong.

In either case, how do you reconcile 300 million individual lives with state influence?

Isn't it effect? The state "a"ffects 300 million people but it has an "e"ffect on them, right? I don't know - I'm always terrible with that one and with its/it's.

I don't know what you think my political beliefs are or what they have to do with this, but I get the feeling you're just baiting once again so I'll leave it at that.

And don't forget who vs. that.

I've no problem with (local) government.

My problem is with The State.

Those 300 million do not need to be managed in a top down fashion by people so drunk on hubris that they think they can represent or know the needs of that many people.

90% or more of all (legitimate) government can be done at the town and country level.
That gives individuals the opportunity to control their own affairs, rather than being ignored while someone claiming to represent "The People" controls their affairs in their stead.

I don't know where you come up with your 90% figure - I don't know if I'd put such a number on it. But I agree quite a bit could be devolved to the states (and I'd personally let the states sort out the local/state division of power). Economies of scale apply to many things in the public domain, so I wouldn't just declare outright that most things belong at the local level.


And I couldn't agree more with this: "That gives individuals the opportunity to control their own affairs, rather than being ignored while someone claiming to represent "The People" controls their affairs in their stead."

Well said.

You agree with me about local control, yet you talk of the economics of scale.

Take public schools for example. It could be argued that statewide standards, or even nation wide standards could cut costs through economics of scale. But doing so sacrifices local control. It completely ignores local concerns, replacing them with mandates from those who claim to speak for "The People".

Which is it Daniel?

Or are you doing your disingenuous 'agree and disagree at the same time' dance again?

Transferring "economies of scale", which make sense in the manufacture of corn flakes, doesn't seem to produce the same benefits in education. The products of 19th century public secondary education in the US, for many a primitive, rural experience with teachers of limited or no credentials, had a better grasp of language, mathematics and history than today's college students.

Real life is not an either/or - it's almost always a both. I don't understand why you think I don't care about local control just because I think economies of scale are relevant to consider.

I also don't see why you privelege towns over counties or counties over states. That seems rather ad hoc.

As far as my supposed dance - if I think that both economies of scale and local control are important, than keep in mind that you're "agreeing and disagreeing" with me as much as I'm "agreeing and disagreeing" with you. This very response of yours agrees with part of what I said and disagrees with another part. So get off that soapbox. It's not even your soapbox. It's a non sequitor Methinks brought up that has turned into a meme on here.

It's a non sequitor Methinks brought up that has turned into a meme on here.

Really? I missed it when he brought it up. I observed it all by myself.

Maybe, just maybe, that is because it is true...?
Ever think of that...?

Did you read my post? Of course it is true. I agree with some points and disagree with others. So do you. So does everyone else here - that's my point.

Which is why I never said it was untrue, I said it was a non sequitor.

"I also don't see why you privelege towns over counties or counties over states. That seems rather ad hoc."

The farther away the decision makers are from those affected by their decisions, the less regard they have for them.

Why? Blacks slaves and Native Americans had a few basic protections under British rule and these protections were abolished when the American Revolution was over.

And how much representation did they have?

I'm pretty sure the answer is none.

One obvious protection the Native Americans has was that White settlers couldn't just barge into their settlements, kill them all and take over the land under traditional British law. Similarly, the early rumblings of ending the slave trade were emerging at the same time.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/kolkey3.1.1.html

Well sure, but you've got centripetal and centrifugal forces working on this sort of thing. What seems ad hoc is your assumption that you can assume where the optimal spot for each issue in question is. Clearly you're fine with town government. Why there? Why not neighborhood or household? Why are you fine with the town rather than complete absence of all government?

Presumably because you acknowledge that some sense of economies of scale is important to consider. And if you accept that, then simply choosing the town as your ideal unit of governance IS ad hoc. Where exactly do you come up with 90% anyway?

Where exactly do you come up with 90% anyway?

As I figure it about the only role of government at the state and federal level is defense. Everything else should be local. So rather than sit down and come up with an actual number, I pulled one out of my ass.

I accept that a certain amount of governance is needed, but in a very limited fashion and at a level where individual voices can be heard. The further away you get from the individual, the weaker their voice becomes.
By the time you get to a state capital that voice is all but ignored, and when you reach the federal level that voice is looked upon with contempt.

Government is not the problem, The State is the problem.

county, not country

Kling also makes an interesting point contrasting what people "want" regarding budget deficits and what people "want" regarding jobs. I think he's acting like this is more of a mystery than it really is.

There's a lot of misinformation out there on the budget - pundits treat the long-term budget and the short-term budget like they're the same thing. They pretend that the factors causing the long term problems and the short term problems are the same factors. They write blog posts with titles like "debt is debt" that obscure the difference between public and private debt and that obscure the implications of countercyclical borrowing.

I think anyone would obviously want both jobs and a reduced deficit - I want that, certainly. I'd jump at the chance of having both. If you pair that desire for both jobs and a reduced deficit with the misinformation about the deficit that's swirling around out there, AND with simply the sticker shock of trying to comprehend how insanely big a trillion dollars is, and of course you're going to have some seemingly conflicting narratives.

It may also be that the questions they're asking are being oversimplified or misinterpreted by the pundits. If I were filling out a survey and it asked "do you think government needs to do more to create jobs" I would check yes. If it then asked me "are you concerned about the sustainability of the federal debt level" I would also check yes. The problem is, the debt question is a poorly worded question. In the hands of a pundit that doesn't grasp that, they could think my "yes" means that I'm angry about FY2011 deficits, which I'm absolutely not.

So - Kling's whole discussion of the inconsistency of these views I think fails to delve into why there are apparently inconsistent views, and the extent to which perhaps these aren't inconsistent views at all.

I thought Kling's whole post read like Alexander's post the other day - it was a lot of huge claims about what "progressives" think of "the people" and how entitled progressives feel. I know this truly does feel like an insight to you Don, but it comes across to me like a rant from a guy that is assuming he knows a lot about what's going on in other people's heads.

As for "do they want government to create jobs" - I think you have it backwards. I don't think it's an assumption at Beverly Hills or Manhattan cocktail parties (not that I've ever been to one, and probably never will) - but you can just consult the American people:
http://tinyurl.com/y8gwq92
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-...

It seems pretty decisive to me. Now that demand may get some angry stares at George Mason cocktail parties, but it is what it is.

We can make observations, and we can draw conclusions. We can make mistakes in both efforts, but are much more likely to fail when we draw conclusions. Man's biggest failures are the result of acting on "knowledge" that, quite simply, is not true.

Since danielkuehn has made two posts within minutes of my last post, I would like to offer my last post as an answer to his two subsequent posts.

Well I agree completely with your last post, which makes me nervous about asking how you think it responds to my two posts.

I'm leaning toward the observation-conclusion paradigm.

I think you actually want me to point out the land mines, and I really don't want to go in that direction with you. You simply want to point out that the conclusions in your subsequent posts are correct.

No, I honestly agree with that post and have the sneaking suspicion you're trying to bait me in a way I'm not seeing.

Please, don't point out the "land mines". I'm sure any response of yours is going to make me wonder if you really adhere to your wise observation above, and that's not something I want to get into today. I like leaving it at me agreeing with that post.

" I like leaving it at me agreeing with that post."

Then it's agreed.

How does government create jobs? What type of jobs are created? What sort of structure (education, trade skills, equipment) is needed to create these jobs? What are these workers paid? What sort of medical care package are they entitle to? Are these jobs sustainable?

Of course we know the answer to the first question.

That leaves a lot of questions to be answered. Too many for the government to answer correctly in my opinion.

Most people just want an income, and hopefully the impression that they've earned it.

Most people don't know enough about economics to realize that value cannot be created by fiat.

Most people think fiat is an Italian automobile maker.

Actually, I know quite a few people who think that sounds really good and have a skepticism ranging to distrust for commerce (though it somehow invisibly provides them with a tremendous standard of living) and when I try to engage them in a discussion about government job creation, they're not interested in discussing it.

It's a wonder no one has chimed in with "jobs aren't created at all, they emerge via market forces".

I haven't heard anyone ask for the government to create jobs, but most people I've heard talk about it seem to take it as given that job creation is a proper role for the government.

Only the government can create jobs. Everything else is just people exploiting one another.

Actually Marcus, et. al.,

The government can create jobs anytime it wants, and we would be wise to petition government to do just that.

Government is currently, and has been for untold numbers of years, suppressing job creation.

All government has to do to create jobs is withdraw from further interference with the markets, repeal regulations, and stop stupid arbitrary oversight of business under the guise of OSHA, EPA, ADA, Affirmative Action, etc etc.

Once government does that, job creation will blow your mind.

...and then watch business take over government (and go back a couple of centuries).

LOL. At least you have your head screwed on right and your priorities straight, comrade. And they say re-education doesn't really work. Pish tosh.

Clearly off topic, but I'd be very curious to know what you and MesaEconoguy think or know about the story here:

http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon/q301.pdf

http://dunwalke.com/11_Hamilton_Securities.htm

What iId be particularly interested in is does her description of the financial manipulations hold up and give her story credibility or are they off-base enough that the rest of her story may be suspect?

I hate government as much as the next person, but accusing it of selling drugs to poor blacks in the eighties raises a red flag for me before even reading the rest of the piece.

Does me to me as well, but then there is Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidian compound, and suddenly it doesn't seem impossible.

That is why I am looking for some verification of the workability or factual description of the financial dealings she details, is that something that holds together.

Then I remember that a reporterette for a national news show in the 1980s did a thorough investigation of the Iran-Contra affair and knew she had nailed Reagan dead with her documentary. She knew it would be devastating to his presidency, and out of professional courtesy she called his press secretary to let him know (and Reagan) what was coming when her network aired the documentary. They invited her to the Whitehouse to see it, she obliged, they loved it and clapped and encouraged her to run it. She asked them how they could react that way. They told her that it was a great piece for Reagan and asked her if she hadn't figured out yet that the great public did not listen to the words they just looked at the pictures.

She took it back to her office, played her documentary with the sound off, realized it was a puff piece of making Reagan look good and presidential in pictures. She took the tape out, threw it in the trash and it never ran, proof that it was.

That incident was reported in Time Magazine in a special report inserted into a larger piece about Iran-Contra. I had a copy and took it in 1997 to a group meeting as information and some one liberated it from my control.

Suddenly nothing seems real anymore. Iran-Contra was real, it involved drugs, where were those drugs sold? The lady in the story makes a case, far fetched, maybe, but not impossible nor even unbelievable.

I know the government will willingly lie to you and I, I know that they view us as ignorant cash cows filling in the void of fly-over country.

So, are her bonafides on the things she claims on the believable claims good enough to make us think maybe she could be telling reality on the other? I don't know finances that well, so I ask.

Thank you for bringing it up.

Don't forget to "/sarcasm"

Oops, you're right, I forgot the </sarcasm> tag.

If you are a job hunting rent seeker, you expect the government to feed, clothe and house you. Why should he or she expect any less when it comes to the government providing employment. Of course most people I know would just like the government to leave us alone and let Freedom and Liberty prosper. Let the Free Market sort out the job situation.