Saturday, November 24, 2012

Free Market Policies

"Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration. This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation."

~Thomas Sowell, Is Demography Destiny?

20 comments:

CrabbyOldMan said...

Thomas Sowell makes way too much sense for most of the population to listen to him.
Also, I could not more strongly recomend that everyone should read Booker T. Washington's book, "Up From Slavery".
But then, I doubt that either Sowell or Washington are considered hip and cool.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

It is shown over and again that a free market, unburdened by barriers to entry (like the Dems old Jim Crow laws), allow people the opportunity to succeed, or to fail, but then try again. Sadly, it seems, Dems consider non-white, non-male, and non-young people to be too stupid, too incompetent, too incapable to succeed in anything as simple as getting a government issued I.D. To the Dems, these pathetic children cannot succeed, and should not even try, beyond filling out forms for hand outs. They need help, they need assistance, they need not the “invisible hand” that creates wealth, but the firm, grasping, constricting hand of those in government who know how they should live their lives, in accordance with the benevolence of the state.

Nate said...

I think it hard to convince those without capital that capitalism benefits them. The barriers to entry to a position that can support a family in the U.S. economy have grown rather than shrunk, and globalization has resulted in fewer and worse paying jobs for those that aren't highly skilled. From my perspective, my parents benefited from "handouts" when my mother got pregnant with my older brother while still in college. They've since become successful, making good salaries and enjoying decades of employment. Without the "handout", they may not have made it, and potentially my brother and I may not have been as successful as we've been.

I think ultimately the conservative argument is not to believe in Americans. You believe that Americans are lazy and will take handout after handout without giving back. I'm personally evidence against this narrative.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nate, could you be specific as to what the "handout" your mother received consisted of?
You said "I think it hard to convince those without capital that capitalism benefits them." Their failure to grasp the well-established fact that the poorest do better under capitalism than they do under socialism is due to leftist propaganda and being intellectually and emotionally deficient.
MY parents most definitely DID NOT enjoy good salaries and could only give me and my siblings very minimal help.
I assure you that my own “capital” is the result of scratching for myself. My lack of sympathy for society’s parasites is because I understand very well why people fail and why they succeed.
Of course all Americans are not lazy, but enough are to drag us all down the shitter.

Haverwilde said...

“I think it hard to convince those without capital that capitalism benefits them.”
When the biggest problem facing the poor in this nation is Obesity, you still cannot see that capitalism is benefiting them. [Only a moron could be so blind as to not see that we all benefit from capitalism.]
The barriers to entering the work force have grown—true. That is a function of a stagnant economy. And who is responsible for the anemic growth over the last few years—The Obama administration.
There are many things that facilitate a growing economy; one of them is inexpensive energy. Normally energy costs fall as demand slackens. But Obama chose ideology over logic. He has raised the cost of energy—demonized coal, raised regulations on oil drilling in the sea, and refused to open domestic oil sources on federal land. All the while, he was throwing money away on green energy companies promoted by his campaign contributors.

Conservatives do not despise the social safety net. In fact some of those safety nets were promoted by business e.g. unemployment insurance. Lots of folks have been assisted in improving their lot in life by government assistance and safety net measures—I benefited for a G.I. housing loan.

It is not a contention of conservatives that Americans are lazy, that is just another of those Nate-created-straw-men. But it is a fact that, there is dramatic uptick in employment just as benefits begin to dry up.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

How many garage start ups, kitchen table origins, back room labs do we read about whre people of no or modest means get underway, Nate? Even the big guys had to get money from those who believed in their vision and tenacity. It is earned, not goven away in handouts.

Not believe in Americans? You believe the lies, Nate. No, I do not believe in those who screech about getting their Obama-phones as the pinnacle of achievement. They will never rise above the lower class. It has always been so. But if you statists keep throwing up regulations, high costs, high taxation, and treat the employer like a never-ending blood supply, things will continue to fail.

Remember, taxes do not keep the rich from staying rich, but they do prevent the non-rich from getting rich.

Anonymous said...

During his two terms in the White House (1981–89), Reagan presided over a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, declining wages and living standards for working families, an assault on labor unions as a vehicle to lift Americans into the middle class, a dramatic increase in poverty and homelessness, and the consolidation and deregulation of the financial industry that led to the current mortgage meltdown, foreclosure epidemic and lingering recession.

These trends were not caused by inevitable social and economic forces. They resulted from Reagan’s policy and political choices based on an underlying “you’re on your own” ideology.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158321/reagans-real-legacy#

Anonymous said...

1984 article: Income gap widens under Reagan

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19840816&id=P1hWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9-4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7051,327218

ALa said...

Nate: I couldn't disagree more. I was just telling my mom, that I believe the fundamental difference between the left and the right...is that the Right believes in the power, will and drive of the individual and the Left thinks the collective functions better. The Right believes that anyone can work hard and rise above it and the Left thinks minorities will make all the wrong choices without the government's "guidance."

Haverwilde said...

Let's rewrite history shall we Anon-a-mouse.
Reagan: "deregulation of the financial industry that led to the current mortgage meltdown, foreclosure epidemic"
Bull Shit
It was the Democratic Regulations requiring loans to folks that didn't qualify that led to the meltdown. The Dems even fought Bush II when he tried to reign in Fanny and Freddie--remember that.

free0352 said...

Do they have a job Nate? Do they have three hour long lines for milk and bread shortages? The answer is, if they want one, no, and no.

Capitalism benefits them. If they're too stupid to see that, there isn't any hope for them as human beings anyway.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Haverwilde, Enemas just keeps spewing shit from I know not where.
I think he is like an old fashioned player piano. Someone puts a roll in him and he makes noises that mimic intelligence, but there is no actual thought process at all.

CrabbyOldMan said...

BINGO Free0352!!!!

Bram said...

Who cares about the gap between rich and poor as long as income for the poor is increasing?

Over and over it has been shown that there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and income growth. Freedom also gives people far more economic mobility.

Why do statists want a country where everyone is equally poor?

Rickvid in Seattle said...

The Mouse hits a point. The gap between poverty and wealth continues to grow, and that is a good thing. Its error is that the phrase I have heard for decasdes, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" assumes that a static group of poor stay poor, and a static group of rich stay rich. No, wrong. That there is much more wealth to be had is a result of capitalism. And the groups described as poor and as rich are fluid. But Mouse and its kind will not think beyond the talking points.

Hoss said...

Nate, you've got it completely ass-backwards: conservatives absolutely believe in Americans, while leftists believe in the institutions of government. I don;t even know how you see that's arguable.

Obama's Julia video was the ultimate example of how this White House, and the modern democrat party, feels you have to have government pulling your strings to get anywhere and everywhere in life, and that's pretty much a direct refutation of your thesis. And trust me, there are more people than the left side is willing to admit that are more than willing to sit back and take, and take, and take; while not only not giving back, but developing a sense of entitlement along the way. Freedom to them means free rent, free cell phones, free food,...

Haverwilde said...

Another interesting note on the Reagan years: During those 8 years the disparity between black incomes and white incomes decreased. During the Obama years that disparity has increased.

Nate said...

So if you believe so strongly in Americans, you'd believe equally strongly in a safety net, since you'd have the utter confidence that a huge percentage of Americans would only utilize when absolutely necessary. Obviously this isn't the case -- food stamps, unemployment and welfare are always deemed socially destructive by conservatives.

However I think it important to realize that a significant subset of the population will not succeed or may not meet their potential without a temporary safety net.

Anonymous said...

Safety net or nice comfy hammock?

Too many people seem to be perfectly comfortable laying on that net for a long rest.

Zelda said...

So if you believe so strongly in Americans, you'd believe equally strongly in a safety net, since you'd have the utter confidence that a huge percentage of Americans would only utilize when absolutely necessary.

Nonsense. Americans can abuse welfare just as thoroughly as anyone else. And it obviously isn't being used only when necessary because it represents the greatest percentage of the budget and we're 16 trillion in debt.

Obviously this isn't the case -- food stamps, unemployment and welfare are always deemed socially destructive by conservatives.

It is socially destructive because in spite of better technology, price controlled food, and ever increasing government interference, more people are getting on it.

However I think it important to realize that a significant subset of the population will not succeed or may not meet their potential without a temporary safety net.

If you need the government for anything you can't pay back, then you are a failure and you always will be. It isn't temporary, and it leads to stagnation, not success.