‘Progressives’ Should Cheer

by Don Boudreaux on June 23, 2011

in Complexity & Emergence, Current Affairs, Inequality

Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:

Re Kate Bronfenbrenner’s claim that Boeing’s plan to build some jetliners in South Carolina violates federal regulations (“A good case against Boeing,” June 23): whatever is Boeing’s motivation for expanding its operations in lower-wage South Carolina rather than in higher-wage Washington state, its expansion in South Carolina would modify a trend that you frequently insist is unraveling America’s social fabric – namely, growing income ‘inequality.’

By increasing the demand for lower-wage non-unionized workers while decreasing the demand for higher-wage unionized workers, the difference between the annual incomes of each of these groups of workers shrinks.  Incomes in America thereby become less ‘unequal.’

As if led by an invisible hand, Boeing is helping to reduce income ‘inequality.’

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

115 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 115 comments }

Scott June 23, 2011 at 8:37 am

Good point which will be forever lost on leftists, however, I think that the left’s inequality argument is generally not against low-wage non-union vs. high-wage union.

Don Boudreaux June 23, 2011 at 8:40 am

True. ‘Progressives” real displeasure is with really wealthy people. But then they should stop talking about income ‘inequality’ and, instead, talk exclusively about the alleged dangers of having lots of income ‘concentrated’ at the top. The two phenomena, while related, are not the same.

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2011 at 8:50 am

Yep – free trade is very much a progressive value.

One of the undercurrents of this particular story that I haven’t seen made explicit is that condescension about the South is one of the few legitimate prejudices that’s still allowed in society.

Daniel Kuehn June 23, 2011 at 8:50 am

I should say – one of the few prejudices that is still considered legitimate. It’s not a “legitimate prejudice”.

brotio June 24, 2011 at 4:19 am

*like*

And Yasafi was right there to prove your point.

Don Boudreaux June 23, 2011 at 8:59 am

Yep – and it’s a condescension that is revealed also in la haute culture discussions of Wal-Mart.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 9:43 am

It’s the anti-union neoliberal sentiment and policy over the years that makes Boeing look to the south as another third world low wage place to move it’s operations. Moving operations there increases the real inequality we are concerned with…. the inequality that has lead us to this economic stagnation.

Defenders and deniers of the significance of this inequality are , when you get to the roots of it, nothing more then supporters of rentiers and of kleptocracy. They are definitely not supporters of efficient markets or liberty or democracy. Any condescension towards the South is towards these policies and their promoters not towards the hard working good people who just want a fair wage so they can raise their families.

Cliff June 23, 2011 at 10:08 am

Ah, so the South is a third-world place? I wonder why it has such a strong net immigration from other areas of the country? Maybe you are prejudiced?

Scott June 23, 2011 at 10:09 am

Wow. So you don’t even acknowledge the point that the income inequality between high hourly wage earners and low hourly wage earners can be improved by Boeing moving south?

Sure at some point income inequality is a problem, but you can’t have a constructive conversation with an ideologue, muir.

LowcountryJoe June 23, 2011 at 10:36 am

You’ve just been exposed — again! — for being duplicitous and talking out of both sides of your mouth. Or do you have two mouths? If so, you should see a doctor about that.

mcwop June 23, 2011 at 11:26 am

The workers in Washington have created the potential situation where Boeing may lose orders to a company like Airbus, which hurts the US. Boeing had many orders to deliver, and they could not because of striking workers in Washington, and that put those orders in jeopardy.

“Sir Richard Branson, the boss of Virgin Group, was so angry when Boeing failed to deliver the planes he needed to ferry thousands of passengers to sunny climes one Christmas. He blamed a strike by Boeing workers in Washington state. “If union leaders and management can’t get their act together to avoid strikes, we’re not going to come back here again,” he told reporters. “We’re already thinking: ‘Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?’”

http://www.economist.com/node/18712206

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm

WSJ print from that Chicago lawyer about the low skilled, uneducated South where businesses go to become bankrupt reflects the bigotry that Muirgeo espouses. And I must wonder about the race issue, since there is a very large ‘minority’ population in the south.

vikingvista June 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm

I grew up in the North. Any mention of Alabama growing up was…well you can imagine. In adulthood, I moved to Alabama and lived there a few years. It was then that I realized that bigotry was much more crass in the North, particularly among the Left.

Ike June 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Viking, shoot me a message offl

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm

I’m not exactly a computer noob, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how.

nailheadtom June 23, 2011 at 9:07 am

” If the NLRB did not take on such cases, it would cede to employers unilateral control over a large swath of the U.S. workplace.”

Why shouldn’t employers have control over a large swath of the U.S. workplace? They are, after all, the employers. Even the government, as an employer, has unilateral control over its employees. Ask anybody that serves in the armed forces, works for the post office or opens Nancy Pelosi’s mail.

nailheadtom June 23, 2011 at 9:14 am

” If the NLRB did not take on such cases, it would cede to employers unilateral control over a large swath of the U.S. workplace.”

Use of the word “cede” implies that the NLRB itself has control over the U.S. workplace, rather than the organizations that operate within it. That may be true, but in an ostensibly free society should unelected bureaucrats determine the parameters of voluntary contractual business relationships?

vidyohs June 23, 2011 at 9:30 am

Of course they should. It is a matter of paramount logic and conventional wisdom among the looney left, that people whose lives have never been sullied by actually owning, working in, and running their own profitable business will have a more clear picture of what has to be done in such a business and how to do it justly.

The real problem in American business is that the owners are just to close to the markets, the people, the problems, and the solutions. American business owners are just to personally invested emotionally and physically in their business to have that clarity of vision that a Harvard lawyer does.

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Beyond a shadow of doubt, progressives want to have the say in locations of future or relocating employment. Remember how Obama admin. Forbid GM from moving out of the very expensive Renasiance Center in Detroit during their reorganizing. Millions could have been saved but the aristocrats decreed the kings wishes of forgoing the savings. NLRB has absolutely no say in where businesses expand to. Furthermore, no govt entity should have a say in business operations and where they choose to locate.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 9:40 am

That libertarian economist can’t reasonably discuss the significance of the top 140,000 thousand earners incomes taking 2.5% of all income in 1975 to now in 2008 taking 10.4% of all income is telling. That you need to gloss over it, ignore it or are incapable of discussing the real issues and instead try to make it about the difference in wages between union member and non-union members is unprofessional and immature. There are millions of people hurting in our country because of this and you just want to make a joke about it.

10.4% of all income…. that’s a massive change in something going on in the economy and you have nothing to say on it. This is your profession…. this type of phenomenon should be of key interest to you. But I get the feeling it is of no interest because its more of an inconvenience.

SaulOhio June 23, 2011 at 9:48 am

You need to convince us it is a real issue, important enough to bother with.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:03 am

Well first of all I would ask our you happy with our current economy? You think this is good? Healthy?

Well 30 years after FDR the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker was 25:1 now 30 years after Reagan it is 200:1.
Back then GDP was 5% not less than 2%. Unemployment was 4% not 9%. The national debt was 35% of GDP and falling not 90% and rising.

And again if you if you think kleptocracy and rent seeking , which explain large amounts of inequality, are OK then I guess your attitude in not caring about it is OK.

I mean you are the libertarian here do you think the reason this inequality exist is a result of libertarian policies? Do yo think it has made our economy better off.

Watch the interview below with David Cay Johnston. He explains why inequality exist and why it matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43488844#43473899

Gordon Richens June 23, 2011 at 10:14 am

“I mean you are the libertarian here do you think the reason this inequality exist is a result of libertarian policies?”
I think you already know the answer to that, not that you’d be honest about it.

SaulOhio June 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm

As long as he has been coming here, he SHOULD know the answer to that. But he seems to be incapable of learning.

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 10:16 am

How would I judge if I am happy with the current economy? Which economy are you talking about? My household? My brothers household? My employers economy? My city? My state?
What is the criteria for which I should be judging the state of my multiple “economies”?

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:51 am

You don’t know?

I want a strong economy that affords my daughters the greatest chance of success…

It’s sad you can’t define what a “good economy” is. Looking at ones own economy ONLY is exactly the problem f the libertarian.

Methinks1776 June 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm

They’re your daughters and they inherited your IQ. They’re pretty much screwed in any economy.

vikingvista June 23, 2011 at 1:23 pm

“They’re pretty much screwed in any economy.”

Not if their dates meet their father first.

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 10:17 am

Kleptocracy and rent seeking are libertarian policies? I would love to see the link that proves that assertion.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:53 am

I’m saying that lkleptocracy and rent seeking are the biggest causes of inequality so I would think the libertarian…ideally NOT a supporter of those things…would be concerned with inequality.

But you guys seem to consistently assume that the inequality is a result of pure merit and rewards to the truly productive.

Basically you back yourselves into another corner of illogic.

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 11:10 am

So your solution to kleptocracy and rent seeking is MORE kleptocracy and rent seeking?

And actually, I believe that existance begets inequality. None of us are equal and none of us have the same wants, needs or desires. Economic inequality is a byproduct of having more than one person in a society. Do your patients suffer because you have a higher income than they do? Do your daughters suffer because their income is below that of your customers?
In terms of posts on CafeHayek, you post more than I do. Perhaps you should refrain from any further contributions until my posts equal yours. I am sure you are willing to do that for the sake of the CafeHayek “economy”.

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 11:27 am

I’m against all forms of rent-seeking, whether it’s GE lobbying to get another government contract, or a Union lobbying for a higher minimum wage and regulations not permitting the free flow of capital.

Ken June 23, 2011 at 12:09 pm

muirgeo,

“I’m saying that lkleptocracy and rent seeking are the biggest causes of inequality so I would think the libertarian…ideally NOT a supporter of those things…would be concerned with inequality.”

This is wrong. The biggest cause of income inequality is the number of hours people work. The people who put more hours in at work earn more. In addition to this, since they put in more hours at work, they become more proficient than those that put in less time because they have more experience.

Regards,
Ken

Gordon Richens June 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm

“I’m saying that lkleptocracy and rent seeking are the biggest causes of inequality so I would think the libertarian…ideally NOT a supporter of those things…would be concerned with inequality.”

Briefly suppose that what wealth you have acquired is the result of hard work and diligence. Also suppose that your neighbor has the same wealth, however he acquired his by way of theft. Would you be happy with such a state of affairs?

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Govt is the greatest cause of inequality.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 7:14 pm

“Briefly suppose that what wealth you have acquired is the result of hard work and diligence. Also suppose that your neighbor has the same wealth, however he acquired his by way of theft. Would you be happy with such a state of affairs?”

Gordon

No…but that’s my point. Much of the rising inequality is due to polictical corruption by those with money and influence.

Dan June 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm

Much of the rising inequality is due to polictical corruption by those with money and influence- Muirgeo
This has truth……just not the in the particular way you have often expressed or the skewed views on corporations and successful people in US.

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 10:19 am

As for FDR, it terms of real dollars, was total government spending per capita greater or less than today?

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 10:29 am

“Well first of all I would ask our you happy with our current economy? You think this is good? Healthy?”
“Well 30 years after FDR the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker was 25:1 now 30 years after Reagan it is 200:1.
Back then GDP was 5% not less than 2%. Unemployment was 4% not 9%. The national debt was 35% of GDP and falling not 90% and rising.”

so its your conention that the current economy is caused solely by income inequality and rising CEO pay that began 30 years? Did the 80′s and 90′s economy not exist? Its interesting that you cherry pick points in time. What was the ratio of CEO to employee pay in 1979? How as the economy then? What was the ration in 1989 or 1999? What was the economy like in those years? .

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:56 am

“so its your conention that the current economy is caused solely by ”

Absolutely!

“Did the 80′s and 90′s economy not exist? Its interesting that you cherry pick points in time. What was the ratio of CEO to employee pay in 1979? How as the economy then?”

Craig…things don’t happen overnight. The economy evolves. First wages are cut, then debt is taken on to support the missing wages, then a bubble and then it pops. In the process wealth is distributed up not down.

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 11:16 am

“Absolutely!”

To make sure I understand, you are saying the current economic condition in a giangantic, dynamic and diverse economy like the US is caused solely by growing income inequality. Sounds like a case of confirmation bias. How do you explain the economic downturns of the 1970′s, the glorious time of less income inequality? Are you further stating the the economy will remain forever in its current state unless the gap between CEO and worker pay is reduced?

What solutions would you offer? If the top marginal tax rate is increased to pre 1980′s levels of 71% how will that help increase worker incomes?

PrometheeFeu June 23, 2011 at 10:29 am

Why should I care if the CEO of my company makes 200 times what I make? Good for him. It does not take anything away from me.

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 10:42 am

I’ve never understood this logic. 1 year I have $50,000 and my neighbor has $1,000,000. The next year I have $50,500 and he has $10,000,000 and somehow I’m worse off.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:56 am

Yeah OK…ummmm…good point.

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 11:23 am

Yeah OK…ummmm…good point.

Is this in reply to me? How am I worse off, if someone else has more?

vikingvista June 23, 2011 at 6:51 pm

“How am I worse off, if someone else has more?”

Because he stole it all from you, the million dollar clerk. The rich steal from the poor. Remember why Willie Sutton said he always robbed soup kitchens?

Gordon Richens June 23, 2011 at 10:01 am

I agree. These people should take their money and leave.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:11 am

Yeah… they are such good people and they are so persecuted. We’d be lost without them. They should all move to an isolated island and cut ties with this cruel world and just trade their billions of dollars amongst themselves… they’d be so rich on their own little island with no one to bother them…that they’d starve to death and we’d all live happily ever after….

Gordon Richens June 23, 2011 at 10:15 am

You don’t get out much, do you?

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 10:04 am

I think I have finally discovered why I can’t understand logic like yours. We simply don’t read the same dictionary. The words look similar but they don’t seem to carry the same meaning. Perhaps you could point me towards a Progressive to English translator? I would enjoy learning your language.

Richard Stands June 24, 2011 at 1:35 am

Try here :)

LowcountryJoe June 23, 2011 at 10:47 am

“…or are incapable of discussing the real issues…”

Every time the majority of us attempt a discussion with you about the real issues as we see them [consequences of more government intrusion; loss of liberty; incentives matter to productive people] you either mischaracterize what we’re advocating, change the subject to Anthropomorphic Global Warming, or duck the discussion entirely only to show up later in a different discussion to repeat the trolling cycle.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 11:02 am

Like the time you came to my blog and left after being backed into a corner unable to explain the economic collapse without the existence of OTC derivatives….hummm.

You or any one else want to go through the details of inequality and why it destroys economies I will be glad to on your blog or mine.

You confuse the loss of threads as being my fault for having incomplete arguments.

You can’t have a complete debate with these threads dropping off every other day.

So do you want to go through inequality in detail. I love a full discussion of a given issue. It’s NOT me who back down or doesn’t answer questions. I simply can not answer all the replies before the thread disappears.

Inequality is the key to everything in our economy and the world economy. It’s the disastrous result of neoliberal policies the professors here push.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/index.html

Slappy McFee June 23, 2011 at 11:12 am

Sweet!!! Now we have included the world economy. At the current federal minimum wage, a full time worker would make enough money to be considered wealthy to much of the world. Are you advocating that we lower the minimum wage to increase world wage equality?

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 11:29 am

“You or any one else want to go through the details of inequality and why it destroys economies I will be glad to on your blog or mine.”

I would be happy to listen to some actually proof and not just rhetoric and anecdotel evidence. I’ve always fooud int interesting that people concerned with income inequality claim having wealth concentrated in private hands is bad and the solution is giving more power to the government.

LowcountryJoe June 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Like the time you came to my blog and left after being backed into a corner unable to explain the economic collapse without the existence of OTC derivatives….hummm.

The derivatives — the insurance mortgage bond holders sought to mitigate non-conforming loans — was a portion, but the driver of this economic slowdown. Bankers — the ones who offered the insurance — wouldn’t have done this much if they didn’t have in the back of their minds that they’d be protected by a government bailout should they actually have to pay-up on many of those insurance contracts. The government had never disappointed the banks; not even in the Savings & Loan crises in the ’80s.

I explained what I thought caused the mess and who had the biggest culpability in driving the downturn. You just didn’t like the answers. Finally, you waited some 27 hours to get back with me and so I lost interest in our discussion — a discussion where you very seldomly made sense — and bolted. But I did come back to it twice, about two years ago, and posted after you had said something about it. And since you didn’t respond then, I figured, probably correctly, that you had nothin’!

Check it out for YourASAFI!

LowcountryJoe June 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm

…was a portion but NOT the driver…

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 3:42 pm

That’s funny…. I reply 27 hour later..then your next reply was 5 months later and some how because I didn’t check the post every day for 5 months I dropped out of the debate….LOL

Anyway the housing crisis is a direct result of too much income inequality. Rising income inequality is a result of government corruption by people with money.

Here is a more recent post explaining the causes and effects of too much income inequality.

http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/2011/06/neoliberal-economy-in-nutshell.html

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Six degrees of separation crap. Homeopathic physician are you? Drink eye of newt and turd of goat, then your lazy eye shall no longer float.

Ken June 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

muirgeo,

“That libertarian economist can’t reasonably discuss the significance of the top 140,000 thousand earners incomes taking 2.5% of all income in 1975 to now in 2008 taking 10.4% of all income is telling.”

This isn’t worrisome at all. You seem to think that for someone else to earn more over time, someone must earn less over time, but this is divorced from reality. Imagine that in 2000, I earned $45K and you earned $35K. This means that in 2000, I am responsible for 56% of our combined in come. Fast forward to 2010, and imagine I now earn $150K and you earn $70K. Now in 2010, I am responsible for 68% of our combined income, yet both of us earn at least twice what we did in 2000. Percentages are necessarily zero sum, but the real world isn’t.

You’re so concerned with rich people and hating them so much you never bother to ask how your proposed policies affect poor people. All of the policies you put forth hurt them far more than the rich for whom you have a weird hatred.

Regards,
Ken

Jim June 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm

I would like to see Muirgeo reply to this. I bet he won’t.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm

I don’t reply to Ken anymore… but you can relay this message to him.

Ask him if the scenario he proposes is consistent with the real world? You know the one we live in?

In a nutshell what he proposes happens would be great if it were happening… but it is not. Median wage earners have been mostly stagnant over 30 years while the very top 0.1% now earn 14% of the pie instead of the 2.5% of the pie they use to take.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43473899#43473899

Ken June 23, 2011 at 4:23 pm

muirgeo,

There is a very easy explanation to stagnating median incomes, if they are in fact stagnating (linking msnbc isn’t reliable in any way. Let me know when you find this information in actual data sets, like the ones the Census Bureau maintain). If in fact yearly median income has stagnated, i.e., remained constant, then the median hourly wages (yearly income/hours spent working in a year) have increased.

This is true because of the decreased time Americans spend at work and an increased amount of free time Americans enjoy. In other words, Americans are making the trade off of having more personal time and still living a fairly wealthy life, or working a lot and being very wealthy. Since hourly wages have increase, Americans have figured out they can work less, yet still have a pretty rockin life style.

What matters is consumption, not earnings. Median consumption, due to fall real prices and increased hourly wages, means greater consumption. Does it matter that if in 30 years I make the same as I make today if the price of nearly everything has declined significantly? Median consumption has increased in the US.

Then there are those who like working, like money, or both, so work a lot. Those top earners you hate so much put in enormous hours at work, probably in excess of 70 hrs per week regularly. As mentioned above, as they put in ever more hours at work, they become more proficient. Since they put in so many hours at work than the average person, who puts in an average of 34 hours per week (1768 hours being the average amount worked in the US per year), in a single year, these hard workers gain TWICE as much work experience as the average worker (70/34 = roughly 2).

In other words you hate people who work hard, become proficient at their job, resulting in much more personal wealth than the average person. Whereas the average person works less than the average person 30 years ago, but still makes the same all the while real prices on nearly everything dropped.

I’m really not seeing what you’re so upset about. Some people choose to relax and make a decent living, yet have more personal time, while others work their ass off and earn a ton of money, but have less personal time. Is this really surprising?

Regards,
Ken

Ghengis Khak June 23, 2011 at 6:02 pm

“Median wage earners have been mostly stagnant over 30 years while the very top 0.1% now earn 14% of the pie instead of the 2.5% of the pie they use to take.”

I think this is a type, so I just wanted to point out that very top 0.1% piece of the pie should read 10.4% (not 14%) as you stated earlier in this thread.

Craig S June 23, 2011 at 7:12 pm

“Median wage earners have been mostly stagnant over 30 years…”

The trouble I have with this statement is the median wage earners from 30 years ago are not the same people as the median wage earners today. Some that was 24, just starting work in 1981 did not earn the same wage every year since. By the same token the top 1% on income earners today are mostly different people than the top 1% in 1981.

Ken June 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm

Jim,

muirgeo doesn’t reply to me anymore because he doesn’t know what to do when faced with logic and facts. He’s super pissed right now, and giving me the silent treatment, because I pointed out that his favorite institution, the gov, caused the housing mess by making profitable, through Fannie, very bad loans. He really doesn’t like it when you point out that what he’s in favor of policies that impoverish people.

Regards,
Ken

Craig June 23, 2011 at 7:31 pm

“the top 140,000 thousand earners incomes taking 2.5% of all income in 1975 to now in 2008 taking 10.4% of all income”

To the extent that’s true (and I’ll assume it is), it’s due primarily to the decades-long inflationary policy of the Fed. When the central bank “eases”, it increases the money available to banks at virtually no cost. The banks then get to create more new money on top of it and collect interest for their trouble.

Eventually, that new money results in lower purchasing power for the rest of us, but the financiers get in on the action before all that. Our expansionary monetary policy has made buying and selling money a more lucrative endeavor than buying and selling goods.

It has a higher return and the money used is more valuable to boot! Blaming some phantasm of unfettered capitalism for supposedly-increasing income inequality is silly. As always, follow the money. Especially the newly-minted stuff.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Craig…excellent…. Thank you! That’s a great explaination. Just don’t pretend the Fed and the Bankers are different people. Super wealthy control and run the fed and they set up the low interest policy AFTER wages stagnated to help make up the difference. There is no such thing as unfettered capitalism because it will always devolve into rent seeking and co-opting government because it is a much more effecient method of making money.

When wages stagnate demand drops and supply outpaces demand. The way to keep demand up in spite of lower wages is to drop interest rates and open up the lending and credit flood gates. YOU ARE EXACTELY right…beautiful… now we are getting somewhere!

Again see my blog post on for the best summary which includes the part you just described.

http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/2011/06/neoliberal-economy-in-nutshell.html

LowcountryJoe June 24, 2011 at 9:35 am

What you have on your blog isn’t well thought out. I did leave a comment there that’s sure to tweek you somewhat.

LowcountryJoe June 24, 2011 at 9:33 am

Eventually, that new money results in lower purchasing power for the rest of us, but the financiers get in on the action before all that.

I first read this in Milton Friedman’s Money Mischief.

vidyohs June 23, 2011 at 9:46 am

“In a videotaped interview with the Seattle Times in March 2010, Boeing executive Jim Albaugh said that “the overriding factor [in choosing South Carolina] was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today. . . . It was that we can’t afford to have a work stoppage every three years.””

“Boeing’s statements, made as threats before the move and then as explanations afterward, were clear violations of the law. The board had no choice but to act.”

I am emphatically on board with the anti-union sentiment/ideology found here, and I personally think the NLRB should be stricken from the books and the bureaucrats that run it driven from the temple with cat-o-ninetails.

However, given the foolishness exhibited by the Boeing executive, Jim Albaugh, a man who you would think would know that the Unions and the NLRB sycophant would be on that statement like stink on cow patties and it would be used to beat them to death, I find it hard to feel sympathy for the company and its own bureaucracy.

Bob June 23, 2011 at 9:52 am

I hope that Boeing makes an announcement on 10/30/12 that they are considering ceasing production in the USA due to unfavorable labor conditions due to government meddling in the free market. It would surely put a monkey wrench into comrade Obama’s socialist plan for a second term.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 10:12 am

Yeah because Boing would be so successful with out all its government contracts….

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 11:30 am

If they could lower input costs (like wages), I think they would be quite fine without government contracts (in fact I believe their revenue from government contracts is considerably lower than it used to be). GE on the other hand…

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 11:38 am

And if Boeing can’t survive without government contracts, then let them fail… Oh wait, you wouldn’t let that happen. No, your kind would choose to bailout such a “symbolic American company”.

So let me get this straight. XYZ, Inc tries to take measures to remain a profitable enterprise and stay afloat on its own. Progressives will not let them make the decisions that are in XYZ, Inc’s best interest. XYZ, Inc begins to fail miserably. Progressives hit up the taxpayer to bailout XYZ, Inc and claim they saved the company. Now replace XYZ, Inc with GM.

vikingvista June 23, 2011 at 1:25 pm

The only success permitted is that which depends upon government support.

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 3:43 pm

That which govt officials have by the balls. If the progressives can’t control it, then they look to demonize it. Order found, without the controls of govt is what they fear.

Mike S. June 23, 2011 at 10:45 am

Can’t a decent amount of the lower wages between Washington State and South Carolina be attributed to a lower cost of living in South Carolina?

EG June 23, 2011 at 11:55 am

As its made clear, the main difference here is starting wages. Pro-Union sycophants can’t understand that the Union at Boeing creates a climate where age discrimination…is the law. It creates a climate where the average employee is close to retirement, and its impossible to replace them within the same organization under the same Union controls. The Union at Boeing serves one major purpose: protect its members from new entrants. It serves to guarantee lifetime employment regardless of performance.

It becomes necessary for Boeing, if it wants to acquire new people, to do so elsewhere. Especially when dealing with the 787, which is an entirely different animal than the current fleet of planes. If Boeing can’t do it within the Puget Sound area, and can’t do it in SC, it will do it outside the US. Either way, it…CAN’T…do it with the current crop of people, because the skills don’t exist.

Furthermore, the Union has created a climate where it pushes back on technology like that found on the 787…because it “takes away jobs”! (ie, the lazy bastard who has been doing the same job for 30 years on aluminum parts, can’t keep doing it now with composites). I suspect this to be a major issue for the Union reaction: its a technological threat to its established members. Its pathetic.

Of course they also can’t comprehend that indeed, jobs are added everywhere from this, even in its Washington state facilities. Simply put, SC is an assembly plant, not a production. A lot of the production still takes place in Washington state. There’s not a single “job” lost or replaced (even if, this isn’t an issue)

The downright disgusting thing about all this is why the government gets involved? the debate shouldn’t be whether Boeing is in the right or not. It absolutely is. The issue should be, why do such absurd laws and absurd institutions exist?

sandre June 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm

Muirdouche keeps embarassing himself. His economic thoery is called muirdouchian – by himself, and himself only. LOL.

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm

“muirdouchonomics” kind of has a ring to it

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Hmmm….muirdouchianism….sounds like Keynesianism to me…

Greg Webb June 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Muir, you have a blog?…I would love to read it…perhaps you can explain statist views without the typical seething hatred and illogical, incoherent arguments that are unsupported by evidence that I see so much from leftist ideologues. How do I find your blog?

You said that, “[i]nequality is the key to everything in our economy and the world economy.” No, inequality in income or wealth can be caused by someone having creative, innovative ideas. As a result, they create greater incomes and wealth for themselves and greater incomes and wealth for those that they employ, while creating greater happiness, and possibly greater income and wealth, from those of us who use the goods or services they provide. This is free market capitalism (or perhaps a meritocracy would be more accurate), which has helped improve living conditions for many people.

But, income and wealthy disparity caused by government intervention only benefits the few and does not create greater income or wealth for us all. It stifles innovation and creativity because no one wants to see the fruits of his or her labor being taken from him or her and given to someone who spent all day watching Comedy Central. In such an environment, there is no incentive to create, innovate, or even work. The incentive is to improve your political skills either through sucking up to politicians or threatening mob violence to extort, through government intervention, the income and wealth earned by others. This is rent seeking at its worst (perhaps kleptocracy would be a better term), and, it is bad for the economy.

You said, “[w]ell first of all I would ask our (sic) you happy with our current economy?” No! And, it has been the intrusion of smart people (who are not wise) in government thinking that, if they only had all the money and power over everyone, then they could create a heaven here on earth (or Utopia as leftist prefer). You simply should not try to immanentize the eschaton.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 4:01 pm

“Muir, you have a blog?…I would love to read it”

It’s not much of a blog…. more of my personal site to store my writings and special articles i come across. But it is a better place to follow through a debate in detail one on one.This post is a good starting point if you want to discuss inequality.

http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/2011/06/neoliberal-economy-in-nutshell.html

“But, income and wealthy disparity caused by government intervention only benefits the few and does not create greater income or wealth for us all.”

Here I will agree with you that government corruption is a big part of the problem. But government is corrupted by people with money. Until that changes things won’t get better. Further , a libertarian government willl always result in rent seeking wealthy people bending the government, its rule and polices to their favor.

The government needs to be responding to the needs and desires of the people. This is where we will diverge in our opinions.

If government responses to the rich you will get increasing income and wealth disparity and more poor people and a less effecient economy. If government is responsive to the people you will have an effecient social democracy because more people will have access to education and more people will be working and wages willrise along with demand.

The evidence seems quite clear on these things to me.

I’ll take the 30 years post FR over the 30 years post Reagan any day. The we were leading the way to prosperity… now we are falling behind.

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 4:09 pm

No…. Because a “libertarian government”, in the truest sense, understands that government should have absolutely no power whatsoever to play favorites in the economy.

The Constitution, before the FDR court, restricted the Federal Government from meddling in the economy.

And, if you cut the size of government, then there is no rent to be seeking.

Regulating certain industries and making rules that apply to some market sectors and business but not others was a concept that emerged from the New Deal.

Muirgeo, I’m sorry man, but you really aren’t that smart. Like I said, a libertarian fovernment wouldn’t have the power to grant rents and special treatment. You have to think this stuff through.

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 9:31 pm

OK Dan so if you want to be debated into a corner showing why libertarianism ultimatly results in feudalism I’d be glad to take you up on a debate at my blog or yours so we can see it through.

I am way smarter then you… I gaureentee it. I’m just not very good at spelling and grammar.

Dan June 23, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Can’t be too smart if you consistently advocate socialism or other colletivist ideas…….not to mention the failure to recognize the govts involvement the Housing Boom/Bust.

Ken June 23, 2011 at 9:49 pm

“I am way smarter then you… I gaureentee it. I’m just not very good at logic and remembering things.”

I noticed your difficulty in the above comment, so corrected it for you. Your welcome.

Regards,
Ken

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm

Muirgeo,

If you’re the definition of “smart”, then I am certainly glad you are “smarter” than me. Because if conclusions reached by using both flawed logic and false premises is what you consider “smart”, then I am so glad I’m not as “smart” as you.

And do you know why feudalism existed, dummy? Because only certain classes of people were granted property rights. There were no universal property rights. I’m pretty sure that no matter how rich or how poor you are in America, you still have property rights.

cmprostreet June 24, 2011 at 2:54 am

“I am way smarter then you… I gaureentee it. I’m just not very good at spelling and grammar.”

Is there any objective criteria on which you have based this? If so, and you /guarantee/ it, how much would you be willing to wager on it (in relation to either Dan H or myself)?

Dan H June 24, 2011 at 8:37 am

How do you want to measure smart? IQ? I think there’s a lot more to being “smart” than one’s IQ. Adherence to reason, logic for starters. Being able to separate a false premise from an objective reality is important.

But if you want to go with IQ, then I’d gladly put my Stanford-Binet IQ score against yours (I was forced to take it in high school as part of a gifted program). I scored in the 99.9989 percentile. Even if you are a member of Mensa (which admits the top 2% of IQs, roughly 132 and above), then chances are I’m still “smarter” than you, judging by IQ.

Now, I’m not narcissistic enough to say I’m smarter than Professor Bourdreaux or many other readers of this site, because I am only 24, and I’m sure that many others have more KNOWLEDGE of certain things than I do. You can only cram so much reading into 24 years. I can admit there are many things I have yet to discover, which is why I quench my daily thirst for knowledge at places like The Cafe. But I have learned the most important lessons to remember when pursuing knowledge: beware false premises, adhere to the laws of logic, and reason is the only absolute.

And at the risk of sounding like a nerd who trolls boards all day, I will add that I got a track scholarship (in addition to a fat academic scholarship) to a Division I school. Sorry, I had to boast.

Dan H June 24, 2011 at 8:39 am

Professor Boudreaux*… sorry Don… added an “r”… Crazy Frenchy French names! ;-)

LowcountryJoe June 24, 2011 at 9:45 am

You sure got Dan H into the corner. That was a neat trick on your part. He’s in a corner at the moment watching you take what appears to be a standing — but very shaky — eight count.

brotio June 24, 2011 at 7:05 pm

I am way smarter then you… I gaureentee it. I’m just not very good at spelling and grammar. – Yasafi Muirduck

Vidyohs’ list of Muirpidities can allow people to judge for themselves whether Yasafi just suffers from poor spelling and grammar, or if he is just plain stupid.

Here’s the list:

(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.

#1.
“The rising income discrepancy is what prevents people from obtaining affordable housing.”
Posted by: muirgeo Nov 2007

or #2.
“If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM

or: #3.
“Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM”

or #4.
“Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand……YOU’RE FIRED!!!… well or at least demoted.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM

or #5.
“Natural cycles will often effect(sic) conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM

or #6.
“I honestly believe the principles I support would increase our liberty not decrease it.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 6:57:16 PM

or #7. “
5,000 year old vegetation has been found in multiple areas around the world in the paths of recently receding glaciers.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:00:43 PM

or #8.
“First , the idea of climates “natural course” is invalid. There’s no magic here climate responds to things we understand pretty well.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 9:02:34 AM

or #9.
“When some one says the climate is warming because it is following its natural course they need to be more specific. That’s all I’m saying. Is it warming from the Sun, El Nino…. what? And provide evidence.”
Vidyohs… your ego so controls you. You should learn how to tame it. You’ll be a happier person.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:10 AM”

or #10.
”I compete with other doctors for my patients and market forces are somewhat in effect. A government single payor(sic) system could actually increase consumer choice and market competition.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:06 PM

or #11.
“ If I was(SIC) to summarize my position it would be that I believe we need more democracy not less ( ie. a government represents the needs of its people more then(SIC) of its economic institutions).
I believe in competitive markets but understand they work best with good regulation.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 12:56:01 PM

or #12.
“Seriously, the only historical reference I can think of was back in the days of the feudal system. Then the markets were completely unencumbered. Property rights were strictly observed and all property was held by a minority of wealthy people with everyone else an indentured servant.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 2:48:31 PM

or #13.
“Poorly worded. Maybe qualifies for a murpidity but it’s a fact that there is no “natural state” of climate. Indeed it’s always changing.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:30:17 PM

or #14.
There will always be regulation. The key is to make it minimalist but effective. The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 1:41:01 PM

or #15.
Hardworking people are whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives. That’s not free market economics it’s common thievery and it’s the end result of allowing unfettered greed run our markets and assuming beyond all reason that the invisible hand will slap these bad boys when they get out of line. – Muirgeo, March 27 2008

OR #16.
I’m no Jefferson but like he I’m as interested in maximizing liberty contrary to what you all claim. It’s a cheap shot when you claim force is being used to steal your liberty when in fact it is being used to spread liberty. Yes force for liberty! There is NO other way. I’m a pragmatist and a reductionist and THAT is what I suspect you all dislike of my post. You don’t get to tell us about your beautiful ideology with out telling me how it plays out in the real world as Karl Marx so aptly described. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 16, 2008 1:26:52 AM

OR #17.
I’m not a libertarian. I’m a pragmatic promoter of liberty in the real world. My views would provide health care for all as part of the social contract that recognizes a right to life and health. We all recognize a right not to be attacked by a foreign invader and thus we impose a military cost to all. Why not also recognize a right to health care a lack of which has killed millions more then any foreign invader of our country. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 16, 2008 3:45:53 AM

Or #18
(muriduck’s answer to muirpidity #1) It’s called Gentrification. It’s a well described social economic / market phenomenon.
” Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood’s character and demographics change.”
gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌjen-trə-fə-ˈkā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1964
: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents

or #19.
I’m pro-democracy. Not a socialist or a communist by any definition. Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 18, 2008 8:46:04 PM

Or #20.
Now, I have to be honest. Like the Founding Fathers I fear even legally gotten massive accumulations of wealth. I struggle with this but my guess is even when the means to wealth is set on an even playing field we might all, at the start of the game have to agree that those of us through luck and hard work fortunate enough to prosper disproportionately will have to pay back disproportionately to the system that allowed us to succeed. Likely it doesn’t have to be a massively progressive tax structure but I’m pretty sure it can’t be done with out some progressively.
Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 23, 2008 12:37:37 PM

Or #21.
Maybe because before the law existed and Wall Street did what it wanted we had a GREAT FRICKING DEPRESSION! That was no fun. Wall Street then as now proved free-markets a bogus dangerous concept.
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 9, 2008 10:24:08 AM

Or #22
“Seperation of church and state…separation of money and state
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 10, 2008 2:22:21 PM”

Or #23
“Having tasted this easy way of living the people wanted more and ever more.”
Posted by: vidyohs

YEP! And that’s why you will never get rid of the welfare state so the best you can do is to optimize it’s efficiency… like FDR, Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton did.
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 11, 2008 10:29:56 AM

Or #24
The market won’t bring these changes on its own since the Invisible Hand has shown itself to have no eyes to plan for what is ahead of it. The idea that we should go blindly into the future is what lemmings do ( I saw them in the Arctic) it’s not what evolved intelligent social beings do. Our ability to plan the future is what has raised us above all the beast. To deny that is to wish a return to living like beast.Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 20, 2008 5:55:38 PM

Or #25
“It may have been Vidyohs that made the statement some time ago that the country should be split into two: one for those that value personal responsibility and freedom and the other for those that want to live their lives in a nanny state where big brother does the thinking and guides the Stepford citizenry through life.
Posted by: Babinich
I’m all for that. I sometimes wish we’d have just let the southern successionist have their way. Of course it’d just be another border problem issue with all those rednecks wanting to come work in our productive economy. Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 28, 2008 3:09:20 AM”

Or #26 (In reference to FDR)
And he wasn’t packing the court he was unpacking the court. You need to review the history a little more. Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 27, 2008 7:47:03 PM

Or #27
“I’m not in favor of totalitarian health care. I favor single payor (basically Medicare for everyone). One of the big reasons IS because it would increase competition making doctors able to return to small practice only having to compete mano to mano with other doctors.
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 2, 2008 1:59:44 AM”

Or #28
“Answering my own question I would not pick this country as my random chance of being born into poverty would be greater then many and the chance for upward mobility would be far less then in other countries. So yeah I’m a patriot but it’s not because I think this is the best country but because I believe it can be.
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 14, 2008 3:09:05 PM”

Or #29
From the Economist (HT: Gonzalo Schwarz):
Makes sense to me. In the top frame all the wealth is accumulating amongst an elite few, actually very unproductive people, in the finance industry. In the bottom frame the money is being recirculated into the economy with more jobs and better wages for the working class. Yeah.. it should work.
Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 13, 2009 4:50:30 PM

Or #30:
the die hard free market guys like Bernake, Greenspan and Paulson and many other experts scared the bejesus out of us saying total economic collapse would have resulted within days. Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 6, 2009 8:08:48 AM

OR #31
Sure it’s an issue but on net the poor and middle class are far better today then they were in the times of which Charles Dickens writes off. You don’t see anyone crashing gates to go back to them times. In fact no such societies exist today because they were so inferior do to lack of any regulation.
Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 7, 2009 12:44:07 AM
Really? Where? I mean even now there is 8-9% unemployment which means 92% of people are working. As far as I know the number of poor has gone down since we’ve had a social safety net.
Posted by: muirgeo | May 8, 2009 9:14:23 AM

OR #32
Really? Where? I mean even now there is 8-9% unemployment which means 92% of people are working. As far as I know the number of poor has gone down since we’ve had a social safety net.
Posted by: muirgeo | May 8, 2009 9:14:23 AM

OR #33
But the libertarian brain refuses to cooperate. It creates divisive non-functional societies which advance slowly while the socially liberal lefty brain… bunch of nerds… work together and use brain power to invent spear, catapults, gun power and nuclear bombs and successfully coordinated societies to dominate lesser beast and other poorly organized humans and their poorly thought emergent property based societies..
Posted by: muirgeo | May 8, 2009 6:33:43

OR #34
“So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?
First most progressives are just as likely to be hard working tax paying and wealthy citizens as conservatives. But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth. Where as people like yourself must believe that you have both superior genes and greater intestinal fortitude as the reason for your “success”. Again as if those also weren’t exclusively the product of chance.
But you don’t give a crap because you think success is a Darwinistic thing based on inheritance alone. And yes I’m somewhat proselytizing because I really have no idea on what basis you believe the things you do… but I’m pretty certain it’s not based on an objective rational evaluation of real world factors. Just the simple-minded idea that merit is always best metered out when the rules are most minimal. WHATEVER!
Posted by: muirgeo | Jun 20, 2009 3:33:07 PM”

Or #35
Massive die -off and extinctions are well correlated with big shifts in climate. You may be advocating this as YOUR “final solution” but the rest of us are planning a better way OK so don’t tell me WE are the ones forcing things on you.

Or #36
Likewise when I hear libertarians trying to separate the market from the governance in which it operates I would argue to do so is un-natural.
The libertarian who views pure markets with no regard for rules,planning and governance is not dissimilar to the naturalist who considers man as an artificial thing apart from nature.
The prosperity pool is filled with goods from both the markets and government planning. Likewise sometimes market failures and externalities as well as government ineptitude drain the pool.
Posted by: muirgeo | Jul 8, 2009 4:28:41 PM

Or # 37
I’m not the idiot. You just unequvically proved it is you. You obviously don’t know the differnece between single payer (proposed for us) and socialized medicine as exist in Canada and Great Britian.
Posted by muirgeo

OR #38
muirgeo 3 hours ago
”The Fortune 400 I believe earned some $1.4 trillion dollars in 2007. If you honestly believe that was more positive for you and the average citizen then it was negative I think you really need to rethink your position.”

OR #39
“OK … that does it. I’m starting my own list… of Minarchipitidies.
#1
“The preamble to the constitution is just typical glossy political rhetoric and has no authority as it is not part of the constitution itself. Those guys had to try and justify to the people what they did in shoving the constitution through.”
Now THERE IS a great campaign slogan! You should be Wayne Root’s next campaign advisor.

And #40 on 10/21/09
“muirgeo 5 hours ago

Ridiculous. Expanding the role of markets in the modern economy just means allowing for one scam after the next to steal from the productive economy.”

And #41 on 10/21/09 in reply of being exposed in #40.
muirgro 29 minutes ago in reply to vidyohs

“Shut up you!

Your opinion doesn’t count because you relied on the government to make your bread. You’re insignificant to the discussion. You need to recuse yourself!”

Or #42
muirgeo 19 hours ago in reply to dkuehn
9/21/09
50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that. You want to make it you need to join the club and bow to corporate rules and law… individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.
Muirgeo 20 hours ago in reply to LowcountryJoe

9/21/09

So you think Goldman Sachs and AIG aren’t serving you (forcing you) with an impending tax liability? It’s not government that’s making you pay that tax to support their CEO’s bonuses… it’s their corporate wealth that owns the politicians. They have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.

Or #43
muirgeo 1 hour ago in reply to ArrowSmith

This is mostly a problem of naunce. You are incapable of seeing shades of grey so there is only free market capitalism or communism. In spite of the fact you live and thrive in mixed economy you can only see two sides that don’t really exist in the reall world. Your’s is a fairy tale existence.
The answer is no where’s insight of the blinders you where but it IS all around you.

Or # 44 (10/20/09)
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to DonBoudreaux

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

OR #45
muirgeo 3 hours ago

Two questions. Who knows what the deficit would have been had Obama not added any additional spending? You guys are all serious fact based analyst right? Anyone? Anyone?
Or #46
11/10/09 muirgeo 3 hours ago

“capitalism is not imposed”
There’s just so much evidence contrary to this claim. Let me guess… your car runs on fossil fuels not because that’s what you want but because you have basically no other choice. You and I pay taxes and suffer physical harm on externalities not included in the market cost of the product.

Or #47
01/05/10 muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to Mark

Democracy is bottom up. Libertarianism is the road to concentrated power, wealth and privilege for a few and serfdom for the rest.

OR #48
Because of gravitational effects of continental land masses sea level rise will not be uniform. When/ if all the ice from Greenland melts its average sea level (around Greenland) will fall because of the loss of the gravitational effects of the ice mass that was once on top of the island.

I could have that wrong in that the levels may not fall but they will not rise as much as say some where out in the Pacific.

OR #49
Muirgeo 1 hour ago 03/29/10
Those protestors are the worst type of control freak ever. They are American Taliban equivalents..

If you think that we / you are being forced then you must believe in the position that no one has any right to any care even if it’s emergency care. Because if THAT is not what you are pushing then you are a hypocrite. And if that IS what your pushing I suspect 90% of people will not be so keen on the idea when they understand it. Certainly most doctors would not support it.

Or#50
muirgeo 1 day ago
“…sensible people react harshly when, as now, that primitivism gains ground…”

Don

To consider the Tea Baggers sensible is itself non-sense of the most thigh degree. They are an amalgam of racist, terrorist, hypocrites, ignoramuses, creationist, “pro-life” followers of mad man Glen Beck who has admitted he is a for-profit provocateur. There is little about them that stands to reason. They, as well documented in the book, ” What’s a Matter with Kansas”, have no idea where there self inflicted misery is coming from because they have been brain washed by talk radio and mass media… which is the source from where this increased political ugliness. Go to any small town and the only talk you radio and news you get is right wing propaganda from Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity and other nut bags control freaks. Control the media ( as Fox News does) and you control the people. Again… thanks to deregulating our media.

Or #51
muirgeo 3 minutes ago
I quite agree. We should let everyone know about this good news.

My comment to Mr Ridley;

“I think it is very important that the 1,000,000,000+ people around the world living on $1 a day get this good news. I suspect they don’t get the New York Times though…. maybe you could go and personally deliver this good news to them… and then report back to us on how that went.”

Or #52
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to Methinks1776
Maybe that is true but your a believer in contracts right…. so whoever in your family came here freely ad signed onto the contract is who you should take it up with.

I suspect what it amounts to is saying you don’t just get to come into this system they has been paid for and labored for by those who came before you and make a bunch of money and then presume to run off without contributing your far share. Yes there is a fair share we each owe back to society and people who don’t believe that are the ones who are stealing from others incomes.

Or#53
muirgeo 11 hours ago in reply to Randy
BS Randy. Most progressives want to invest in a solid infrastructure that creates fair and competitive markets.

Or #54
muirgeo 1 hour ago in reply to Sam Grove
The prices don’t need to rise… the CEO’s can just take home a little less. A little more wage equity would solve a lot of problems.

Or #55 Aug 3, 2010
“I don’t suffer from the “Progressive” itch for income equality…”
Don

Progressives don’t itch for income equality. They long for equality of opportunity. ”

OR #56 Aug 22, 2010
muirgeo 3 hours ago in reply to EG
“And technology and science I suppose develop as a result of…of what?”

”Of renaissance thinking which was and is based on humanism.”

”The billion our the victims of capitalism placing them and their countries in never ending cycles of debt. They are also victims like those living under dictatorial regimes supported by our free market capitalism.”

OR # 57 Sept 5, 2010:
“The Wealth of Nations is built on making things not buying things.”

OR # 58 (pending) Sept 6, 2010:
“f I build a log house in the woods with my own supplies and hands I am wealthier from the work and produce I have made. If I sell that house for the market value I am no more wealthy then if i keep it.”

I know plenty of people who are poor at spelling, but are none the less intelligent people. Yasafi is not one of them.

Dan J June 24, 2011 at 11:44 pm

Ooohhhh……. Buuuuuuuuurrrrrnnnnnn!!!!!!

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:07 am

@Dan H
Would be interested in a study of gifted students and their later finances in life. I, too, spent much time in those gifted programs, but was annoyed by them, as the friends I had were not in them. I did not have fun in them. All of the extra work and having to be in the class with soo many nerdy kids who had runny noses and were afraid of a basketball or any other sport equipment.
Calligraphy, other arts seemed to be the focus, as if ‘gifted’ students lacked artistic skills. Had to go thru quite the bureaucracy to get out of it. Was your experience similar?

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 12:52 pm

brotio, thanks for compiling the extensive list of illogical and incoherent statements by Muir. It also looks like he did not provide any objective, verifiable evidence for his claims either.

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Dan H., your credentials are most impressive. But, even more impressive was your wisdom in acknowledging that you cannot know everything and that you are learning from others like Professor Don Boudreaux. I was also impressed with your statements that there is more to intelligence than simply being smart like adherence to reason and logic and being able to separate a false premise from an objective reality.

LowcountryJoe June 24, 2011 at 9:40 am

It’s not much of a blog…

Why does this remind me of a Breakfast in America song? And why am I not surprised given your posting history and your philosophical leanings?

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Muir, please see my posts below. Also, please let me know where you would like to have our debates about (1) the relevance of income inequality and (2) whether it is libertarianism or socialism that is the new feudalism.

Dan J June 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm

There’s that Narcissistic Sociopathy

Greg Webb June 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm

Muir, for some reason my iPad picks up only 31 responses to this post, while my iPhone reflects 77 posts, including your most recent one. I will print out the article on inequality that you referenced in your post tomorrow, along with the one referenced by Don Boudreaux, and read them over the weekend. I will also respond over the weekend too. I do not care where. This site is just as good as any. But you choose.

You said, “[b]ut government is corrupted by people with money”. No. As Lord Acton corrected said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So, people do not corrupt government, rather government, or more accurately, the power conferred on people in the government tends to corrupt them. The more power conveyed, the more likely the government official will be corrupted. If absolute power is conveyed, then it is absolutely certain that the government official will be corrupted.

You said, “Until that changes things won’t get any better. It won’t change. Power tends to corrupt people. For example, Mao started out as an idealistic young man who hated the corruption in people of his father’s generation. But, once he had the power he sought, it changed him to a mean-spirited, hateful old man who killed millions of his own people, rarely took baths, slept with young girls, and told his doctor that the people did not matter, what mattered was Mao.

You said, “The government needs to be responding to the needs and desires of the people”. It does not, and it will not ever do so. The government is not some omnipotent being. The government is composed of flawed, inperfectable human beings. Consequently, government officials will pursue their own best interests and not of the public they are elected to represent. Economist James Buchanan has written elegantly and accurately about this phenomena in creating the branch of economic study called public choice economics.

You wrote, “If government responses (sic) to the rich…”. Government always responds to the rich. Much of public discourse is to create the impression that government officials care about you and want to help you. Not so. The tax code is intentionally and unnecessarily complex. The goal is to hide the fact that they are protecting the wealthy by making the issue about high income people. For example, wealthy people hire tax lawyers and accountants to create complicated family trusts to legally avoid paying taxes when the property is transferred to the next generation while also avoiding paying income taxes on income earned by the trust. But, high income people trying to create and accumulate wealth cannot afford the tax lawyers and accountants to create such trusts. The goal is to keep the masses from looting the really wealthy by sacrificing high income people. It also keeps the high income people from ever challenging the existing wealthy people for power.

You wrote, “[I]f government is responsive to the people you will have an efficient social democracy because more people will have access to education and more people will be working and wages will rise along with demand”. Conclusory statement. Also your premise that “if government is responsive to the people” is incorrect as discussed above.

You said, “The evidence seems quite clear on these things to me”. But then, why did you not provide any evidence?

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 1:01 am

You really are too good to waste time with him.

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Thank you, Vikingvista. I am concerned that you may be right now that I have read Brotio’s posting of Vidyoh’s extensive list of Muirpidities.

Greg Webb June 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm

Muir, you said, “I’ll take the 30 years post F[ranklin] R[oosevelt] over the 30 years post Reagan any day. Then we were leading the way to prosperity…now we are falling behind”. This statement reveals that you are emotionally invested in this issue. And that is why most conservatives and libertarians believe that statists cannot make a logical, coherent argument supported by objective, verifiable evidence. The standard of living from 1980 through 2010 was much higher than from 1930 through 1960. Over 100 million people were killed in war, purges, pograms, and famine in your preferred time period as opposed to the 30 years post Reagan. Would you care to retract this silly, emotional, and incorrect statement?

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Muir, I really am waiting for an answer to my question regarding your illogical statement about preferring to live in a time with lower standards of living and mass murder occurring in so many countries. It is proper, when debating, to concede statements and issues where you are clearly wrong. It is also a wise thing to do tactically in order to avoid complete loss of credibility.

Greg Webb June 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm

Muir, libertarianism is about free people making their own decisions. Socialism, in all it’s various forms, involves the centralization of power in the hands of a few to command the many…supposedly for the good of the many, but really always for the good of the few. And that is feudalism, except that feudalism does not include the the idealistic, and unrealistic, slogans, art work, and propaganda of socialism.

Dan J June 24, 2011 at 12:26 am

Very nicely done Mr. Webb.

Greg Webb June 24, 2011 at 9:08 am

Muir, I have your blog post entitled “The Neoliberal Economy in a Nutshell. I also have the article entitled “The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth” by Ludwig M. Lachmann. I will read both on Saturday after the Gold Cup finals match between Team USA and Mexico. I will most likely respond on Saturday or Sunday in the location of your choosing. Please let me know you have any other articles on the issue of income equality that you would like for me to consider. Also, I am pleased to take you up on your offer to debate the issue of whether libertarianism or socialism results in feudalism. Please let me know when and where you would like to have this debate.

Dan J June 24, 2011 at 11:42 pm

Mr. Webb, I have sympathy for Maogeo…. I fear u shall crush him, intellectually. I am intrigued by your reasoning. Nicely done. Bravo!

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Thank you, Mr. J. You are most kind. But, let’s dispense with the formalities. Please call me Greg.

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 2:04 pm

Your articulations deserved the formality.

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Thank you again, Mr. J. But, I prefer the informal to the formal.

Erich June 24, 2011 at 3:07 pm

Union supporters often don’t understand the unseen effects of paying workers “union wages.” They either, wittingly or unwittingly, fail to see the fact that less labor is demanded when the price for labor is artificially kept high. This same thing happens with the implementation of minimum wage laws.

As Harry Browne would likely: when the government and their fellow statist fans fight for “union wages,” they are in reality, breaking the poor’s legs, handing them a crutch (other wise known as unemployment or welfare), and saying, “see, without me you couldn’t walk.”

It’s an entirely selfish motive. But the selfishness is not the problem – everyone should want to make more money. The real problem is when places like NRLB choose to use force to benefit the few at the expense of the rest.

Ohhh, you gotta love statists!….

Erich June 24, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Union supporters often don’t understand the unseen effects of paying workers “union wages.” They either, wittingly or unwittingly, fail to see the fact that less labor is demanded when the price for labor is artificially kept high. This same thing happens with the implementation of minimum wage laws.

As Harry Browne would likely say: when the government and their fellow statist fans fight for “union wages,” they are in reality, breaking the poor’s legs, handing them a crutch (other wise known as unemployment or welfare), and saying, “see, without me you couldn’t walk.”

It’s an entirely selfish motive. But the selfishness is not the problem – everyone should want to make more money. The real problem is when places like NRLB choose to use force to benefit the few at the expense of the rest.

Ohhh, you gotta love statists!….

Previous post:

Next post: