1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status. He is probably correct (I don't have the data) but it is a specious argument. The question is, where are people better off, not where do people give more to charity. True, if I pass a beggar in Ethiopia I'm more likely to give him something than I am likely to give something to a panhandler in Wpg. And it is because of the social safety net I know exists in Canada. There are people in Ethiopia who have large number of [un-official] foster children, without government support. There are some wonderfully generous people in Ethiopia. This does not make the Ethiopian system superior to the Canadian -- believe me.
The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared. Again, the same specious argument. If a government purports to look after its people, but in fact does not (for example Soviet Union), he has a point. If however, the government is looking after its people by all indicators, why is there merit in the existence of numerous charities? Its my understanding (I could be misinformed) that of the G20 countries, the US is the only country with free medical clinics for the poor -- free because health practitioners are volunteering their time. I most certainly applaud these practitioners, but I fail to see what merit there is in having a political system that makes this necessary.
2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke. 1) Any intelligent person knows that a state goes broke if money out consistently exceeds money in. It does not matter where the money goes (welfare, armaments, subsidies, space programs, education, etc) or where it comes from (taxes to the rich, taxes to the poor, consumption tax, etc.) To single out the welfare state simply exposes a bias, not insight. 2) I see no similarity between workers getting a retirement income and a Ponzi scheme. The workers currently collecting retirement income have built up the infrastructure that allows current workers to be five times as efficient as the retired ones were.
3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state. Why is it considered narcissistic to treasure leisure time and family time, but [apparently] altruistic to be involved in the manufacturing of widgets no one needs (although they desire them, and may buy them)? If this contention of narcissism is true, this applies equally to those who don't work and depend on private savings, and those who don't work and depend on state support.
4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character. Surely a little more work on when there is merit in work and when there is merit in leisure and/or family time is needed.
5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement. I am assuming that Prager will make very sure that his children will work their own way through school. To pay school fees for them, for no other reason than that they happen to carry his genes, is guaranteed to erode their character.
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you. Corruption is of course a very serious problem we should all be concerned about. Transparency International does some serious work in this regard and its Corruption Perceptions Index can be viewed here. Worth noting is that although the US probably has the biggest government, it ranks well. Many countries with small governments rank poorly, so I wonder on what basis Prager is making this statement.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband. My perception, and it is only a perception, has always been that the wealthier the family, the more temptation there is to unfaithfulness within marriage. Even the TV soaps broadcast that. There may be good research on this, I don't know. Would Prager be open to research on this, and follow the research wherever it goes?
That is not to say that there is not a need for welfare reform. I think this is very necessary.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want. It would seem to me, a statement like this needs to be supported by some data. The chart below does not say everything, but it does contribute information that I think is relevant - teenage pregnancies.
And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.
9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them. Do you want go here! Surely you don't agree with him. Today, one of the greatest evils in the world is the American pursuit of empire!
10. The leftist weltanschauung sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality. As I have said previously, I cannot speak for the Left. I only speak for myself. I see the abuse of power by the powerful, the abuse of the powerless by the powerful as one of the main, perhaps the main manifestations of evil in this world. You tell me whether there is a correlation between wealth inequality and such abuse. Tyranny in this world is not limited to the rich, but the temptation for the rich to become tyrannical is significant. Incidentally I would certainly not label a concern about inequality as a battle between rich and poor, although certain leftest revolutionaries would.
None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse. My perception is that those Prager would label Leftest (not my label) have more data supporting their claims and those on the Right resort more to labeling. But that's just my perception. Traditionally, the universities have been regarded as the place where unbiased research is carried out, including social research. What I have been hearing from Prager and Kroeker is that these are Leftest havens, and as such not be trusted. Of course this makes it easy to discard information from such sources, but begs the question of where one would then find reliable, unbiased information.
If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful. Good tribal statement.
I appreciate the detailed reponse, I will have to wait to respond as the stock market is imploding today and hence i am quite busy.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the time you spent, and alas I won’t put as much time into responding. I disagree with most of your commentary (but not all), and I fear both of us are going to end up repeating ourselves. I wonder if it makes most sense for us to try discussing current issues more from our respective perspectives, as opposed to our theoretical arguments.
ReplyDeleteI think one basic perception we disagree on, which skews our respective reading, is you appear to believe the welfare statement has been largely successful, and I believe it has been entirely unsuccessful. If you look at poverty stats from 40 or 50 years ago, before the “Great Society” began, the income gaps have widened and the % of poor have increased relative to 1960. Blacks have been hit disproportionately hard, particularly with illegitimacy of 19% in 1960 and today it is 70%. This is clearly hitting the poor harder than the rich unlike your commentary. If you look at whites during the 1980s, the bottom 10% had 1% in 1960, 44% illegitimacy in the 1980s and 70% today. The top 10% wealthiest had 1%, in 1960, 2% in the 1980s and a mere 4% today. The state is replacing the father, and I ultimately believe that is what the far left (certainly communists believe) wants to do. Replace allegiance from parents and religion, to loyalty to the state. All this success of the welfare state at the cost of bankrupting western society.
You can say that any intelligent person knows that spending more money than one takes in is unwise, but the left in much of the world demonizes those proposing balanced budgets. If only the left actually propose some debatable solutions (such as a sales tax, which you and I agree on) as opposed to fabricating lies such as the rich don’t pay their fair share (even though the top 1% pay 46% of income taxes) or that oil companies get tax breaks (when oil companies pay near the highest tax rates).
As far as your commentary that larger governments make things more corrupt, and you note the US is less corrupt than many countries. If you look at your map, there is a reasonable correlation between government as a % of the economy, and corruption. That is the more relevant metric, and on that basis the US is about average. However, in fairness, there are some notable exceptions, such as Sudan in which government spends only 7.6% of GDP and is highly corrupt.
I also want to point out that over 80% of college professors and journalists self-describe themselves as liberal, and over 90% of Hollywood actors do. These groups shape our information disproportionately Without recognizing their perspective is very liberal, people don’t realize the liberal brain-wash that is going on.
I mistyped one part, where i say the bottom 10% of whites had 1% illegitimacy rates in 1960, that should read 20%.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear Karl interacting with Eric's point number one in which he states that it is more important where the people are better off not where there are more charitable people.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear Eric admit to the fact that the university faculties are filled with liberal thinkers, they are self-described thus and therefore teach thus. Lori BTW I tried to post on my google account and it says this blog does not authorize me to do that. anybody know what has changed?
I appreciate you keeping us honest and making sure we address the issues. I think comparing the US with Ethiopia on the point of what system of government is better, introduces too many factors that make it less comparable. But i think it is very relevant to compare a country before and after the "entitlement state" was brought forth in deciding its efficacy. Despite great expense (and as you can see today, riots over bankrupt western nations throughout the world) the entitlement state has not improved the state of the poor within western nations. The poverty rate in 1960 (pre entitlement state) is similar to the poverty rate today. As i mentioned, the illegitimacy rate today is far higher today than 50 years ago before the welfare state - specifically with the poor- and there are many stats to show how we are much worse off. Now this does not prove cause and effect, as people and economies are influenced by many factors. However, I would like to see the evidence, that the entitlement state has made society better than it was 50+ years ago. That to me is the most relevant question for U Eric.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your ability to post, I know nothing. I have not touched the control settings for many months. Caroline may know something I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAnswering the others will take a little more time.
A couple of thoughts
ReplyDelete1) I find the chart correlating showing teenage pregnancies with income inequality interesting and disturbing, but of equal interest is the distribution of "1st" world countries. I wonder where countries such as Cuba, Mexico or Brazil would fit.
2)Not sure this fits with the Prager comments, but recently overheard a coment from a news commentator that the recent crumbling of the US housing /financial industry and the trickle effect to most of the world can be traced to a Busch(Republican) decision to deregulate the US Banking laws. It was I believe Cretian(Liberal) who stood his ground (we all say thank you in Canada) and refused to relax the Canadian Banking laws. As a result, and I think it looks pretty direct, it will take, not years but some say generations to recover. That can almost make one angry that one man's(Busch) decision/(ideology) can impact billions for generations. What short sighted apathetic morons (dictionary definitions) are running the country? I see the same thing in my industry where as soon as there is a small profit to be made some people get stupid greedy not considering the impact for the next years - my brother said it quite interstingly - pigs get fat - hogs get slaughtered. Unfortuneatly in most countries it is an elite few who make and or influence all the decisions and as such we need to really pray we get the right ones and that we are smart/wise enough to keep them when we find them.
kk
I agree that the housing problem stems from the government laws, and is a classic example of good liberal intentions, but a failed outcome. However, the notion that it was banking deregulation that caused the housing problem under Bush is false. This is hardly debatable, as there was no banking deregulation under Bush, but alas that is the liberal reporter talking point, even though it doesn't line up with any facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Community Reinvestment Act passed in the 1990s, is the primary cause. As we have discussed on the blog before, this policy forced banks to lend to the poor. The government decided that home ownership amongst the poor was too low, and hence if any bank wanted to be in the home mortgage market, they were required to us 20% of loans to the poor. Hence it effectively forced loans to those that could not afford to pay it back, if it wanted to lend at all.
Bush is to blame, to the extent that he did not end this policy. However, how do you think the media would have covered it, had Bush ended this policy? "Evil George Bush attacks the vulnerable, taking away loans from the poor, while giving tax breaks to big oil". However, Bush is still partially to blame for this madness, as he should have ended it.
So yes, it is sad, that the government policy of increasing home ownership, and going around market forces, had produced the housing mess. The policy that was meant to help the poor, predictably has made them worse off than before the policy was in place as the low-end of the housing market in particular is now being destroyed as that is where the economics never made sense to begin with.
So yes, agree we need to pray for our leaders and help make them wise.
Here is a good short 5 minute video from 20/20 summarizing key elements to the mess we are in, made in 2008 (you will have to cut and paste to see).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZP9Br-ZI9U
It turns out, I found this a helpful video, even though I have an inborn suspicion of anything that begins with “The truth about . . .”
ReplyDeleteMuch as been commented since I first made this post. I will limit my response. This is a long response, and I apologize for that. Blogger would not accept it as one comment.
Karl says: “you (Eric) appear to believe the welfare statement has been largely successful, and I believe it has been entirely unsuccessful.” If that's your perception, so be it, but I do encourage you to to take my example at the end of this comment seriously. You might back off your categorical “entirely”.
I would put it very differently.
I believe if we want to live together harmoniously, we need both justice and charity. They are not the same, and we need both. This applies in the home, and extends to ALL levels of government. For the home to be a happy, harmonious place, everyone needs to be charitable – at least up to a point, and a culture of charity within the family will go a long way to ensure that the family is happy. But there will be times when charity alone won't do. Justice is needed when two children want the same thing, especially when the two children are not the same size. This is where Mom and Dad come in to mete out justice. I believe a major function of government is to mete out justice – that is, it has a role in protecting the weak from the powerful. I believe the relevant measure of a country's prosperity, of a country's quality of life; is how the poorest, the weakest fare. If this is not justice, what is? I believe this is also what the Bible teaches. So government policy needs to reflect these values. As governments have tried to do this, they have not always succeeded. Some countries have been better at this than others. At times in our history we have been better at this than at other times. I take inspiration from the better times and better countries, and seek to hold my government to a high standard.
I don't hear you disagreeing with that, but I hear you saying is that whenever government tries to follow this agenda, it screws up. Government is incapable of following this agenda effectively. So the best it can do is get out of the way. Justice with respect to the poor, won't happen – its a fantasy, so let's make the most of charity.
I do wonder about the use of the phrase “welfare state”? What must a country do to achieve that status? There are policies that are intended to assist the poor. Would you call each of these a welfare policy? And if so, how many of these must be implemented to achieve welfare state status? I am asking these questions, not because I want to be argumentative. I want to know. You say I seem to think the welfare state has been largely successful. I honestly don't know what a statement like that means. In my view, some policies intended to help the poor have been successful, others have not.
A mantra of the Right seems to be “we are in favour of equal opportunity, rather than equality,” implying that the Left is in favour of equality rather than equal opportunity. Maybe this is true of the Left, I honestly don't know. I know for myself, I have spoken up for equal opportunity rather than equality for years. When I was working for MCC, I was hoping to get this to be the main thrust of what MCC was doing with respect to aboriginal people, but I did not achieve this.
I agree that a substantial focus of those who have raised welfare issues has been a need for a progressive income tax – tax the wealthy to help the poor. I regard this as unfortunate, although I am not convinced as you seem to be that this has been a dismal failure.
I would see a lot of value in a discussion of policy that focuses on equal opportunity. But your recent comments on the Right, Karl have not altered my perception of the Right, namely that it is fixated on reducing taxes and deregulation, as if those two measures alone will result in equal opportunity for all and prosperity for the poor. I really am not interested in that discussion, because, as I have said before, it looks like a hammer looking for a nail – a solution looking for a problem. But I really do wish you would convince me that the Right is in favour of “equal opportunity.”
ReplyDeleteHere is a very current issue, one I know something about. I apologize to readers who don't. I'm sure KK will want to wade in – the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. The CWB came into being in response to the perception that small farmers were being gouged by the large grain companies. This was during an era when co-ops were spreading across western Canada. The CWB became the marketing arm of Canadian wheat producers. The Canadian Government gave the CWB monopoly power, so that it has been the sole marketer of Canadian wheat. It has been that for many years. The big American grain companies have brought 14 fair trade challenges against the CWB asserting that this was a form of unfair trade, a government subsidy. In each case the tribunal found in favour of the CWB.
Recently there have been a significant number of Canadian farmers who have wanted the right to market their own grain, so they have challenged the monopoly power of the CWB. They have gained the ear of the current Conservative government, so that this government is now committed to stripping the CWB of monopoly power, thereby ensuring that it will be dismantled.
To me the issues are pretty clear. Those farmers who have the resources and/or capacity to do their own marketing see the CWB as a barrier to their effective marketing. Those farmers who do not have these resources and capacity, depend on the CWB to do this marketing for them.
To me this is a classic “equal opportunity” debate. The CWB came into being in order to assist the [small] farmer (or if you prefer, to create a more level playing field between the giant grain handling companies and the farmer). The very fact that the Americans have brought 14 challenges, is an indication that it has functioned effectively (if it were ineffective, there would be no need for the challenge). I have no doubt that there are instances where the CWB has been ineffective or inefficient, but all studies done, have concluded that on the whole it has served Canadian farmers well.
So there is no question in my mind but that the CWB is a vehicle for delivering “equal opportunity”. I am also quite prepared to believe the claim of the farmers who have the resources to do their own marketing (who happen to be the largest, richest farmers) that they would do better without the CWB.
Our current Conservative government is following an ideological path that will eviscerate an “equal opportunity” policy. The rich will benefit, the poor will suffer.
Not to disappoint :)
ReplyDeleteI struggle with the CWB analogy as I fail to see why the garunteed demise if it is removed of 100 % monopoly. I agree that a wide open "sell anywhere" policy will ulimately lead to CWB demise but only because your theory (that big rich companies need some controls to curb their human nature)usually plays out as fact - the CWB has no infrastructure and the private grain companies would soon say " oh you want to sell to CWB - we are so sorry we have no room today" (and that could be a long day). I think you can figure out the rest.
Though if some sort of controls can be put in place I don't see why a dual marketing system can't work. Not totally up to speed but doesn't Australia have a dual mkting system - not sure how theirs compares to ours. I do agree the total demise of the CWB would be unacceptable, for the reasons you mention. I also find it of great interest that the CWB has survived not 1, not 2 but 14 FTA challenges. Maybe more thought is needed on that one Harper before it is too late. Your(Eric) point is well made.
I have not had a chance to check out and respond to comunity reinvestment act, but you are correct Karl we do listen too much to the media and assume it is factual. I overheard a comment on the radio over the weekend from a principle in a financial investment firm who made the comment that the US's finacial woes are decades from being over which is in contrast to the popular media which touts it as being only a few years away.
KK
I agree that justice and charity need to work in harmony. I define justice as what is right and wrong, whereas it appears you define it as equalizing outcomes right? Perhaps I am wrong, but here is my logic.
ReplyDeleteYou say “I believe a major function of government is to mete out justice – that is, it has a role in protecting the weak from the powerful.” We may completely agree on this point, as who would disagree that we should protect the weak from abuse from the powerful. I am not sure I know of any examples though where conservative principals would diverge from this. I think where we do diverge is that conservatives don’t believe in adding an adjective to the word justice (for example “social justice”). It is either just or not. A key message to me of the Bible as I read it, is we should treat the rich and poor the same (for example Exodues 23:6, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17) with respect to justice.
You ask what the definition of a welfare state is, and you are correct it is tough to define. But what we do know is that social security, medicare, unemployment insurance and other such programs, have become more generous across all western countries the past 40 + years (they didn’t even exist in most cases 50 years ago). From what I see from the evidence, the poor have not done better relative to 50 years ago. I have provided stats showing how the “entitlement state” brought about in 1960s, have made things worse for the poor, which even ignores the cost of these programs which as we now see is bringing entire governments down. What metrics do you look at that tell you these programs have been a success?
As far as the Canadian Wheat Board goes, you are far more knowledgeable than I, and hence I could be quickly convinced it is a good thing and that Harper is wrong. What would convince me is that when Ontario or Australia got rid of their “wheat boards” what happened to the smaller farmers, did they suffer? More importantly, I would like the question to be “what is best for society”? For example, from my understanding the CWB does not alter prices to consumers, but it does limit opportunities in creating businesses from wheat-based value-added products like pasta or beer. I have heard arguments that North Dakota and other Northern American states benefit indirectly from the CWB as its less bureaucratic to set up businesses using wheat input (as opposed to in western Canada where you have to buy from the CWB), and hence helps their economy relative to the Canadian economy (hence this hurts all Canadians). I have not studied this however, and I could quickly be convinced that this is false.
Are you in favor of the dairy board, which insures higher prices for dairy products in Canada hurting all consumers but helps out the smaller farmers? I realize this is different than the CWB (where prices don't appear to be altered) but the point being that I ask "what is best for society" not "what is best for the small farmer" in isolation.
ReplyDeleteI find that the exchanges are getting somewhere. These have been refreshing comments as it seems that the issues are being addressed more directly and differences are being made clear.
ReplyDeleteLori
I do want to respond to Lori's “I would like to hear Eric admit to the fact that the university faculties are filled with liberal thinkers, they are self-described thus and therefore teach thus.” Yes to all three of your points, although I am too removed from the University to be a reliable witness in that regard. Nevertheless some comments:
ReplyDelete1) Is then the implication of this that there is no place to go for non-biased research? I think the answer might be that one needs to note that no one is without bias, but I still think the university is designed to discourage bias, whereas that think tanks and businesses are designed to work in their own interest.
2) Partisan views of research affects academic alignment with a party. Two examples: Stephen Harper has his Law and Order agenda. For him this translates into longer sentences and more prisons. When he was told that the research does not support the view that longer sentences contribute to law and order, he says, “I am not interested in the research.” The Republican party now finds it more plausible that scientists are parroting climate change concern because that is where the money is, than that climate change deniers are funded by donors who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. I don't see anything conservative about those two stances. It seems to me many conservatives academics do not align with the current Right because of its anti-science bias. My perception is that this anti-science bias on the Right is a recent thing. There used to be a strong link between conservatives and the Ivy League colleges. I suspect many conservatives find the current drift to linking with Bob Jones University disconcerting.
You are right. Justice is about right and wrong, but personally I find that phrase too nebulous to be useful. If it works for you, use it. I find it more useful, more meaningful to think in terms of whether the most powerless, the weakest of society are being treated fairly. And, yes, I find it hard to divorce justice from some measure of equality.
ReplyDeleteSo any given company sells it product and pays for its inputs. The net is then distributed between owners and employees, and then “wages & salaries” are distributed among employees. The justice question is, how is that net distributed. The owners and all the employees have had some hand in creation of the product, indeed in the efficient creation of that product. Normally the most highly paid person determines that distribution. What criteria does one use to determine the justice of that distribution. What I hear the Right saying is that main criteria is comparison with peers in other companies. My view is that the main determinant of the justice of that distribution is ratio between the most highly paid and the most lowly paid. The logic of the Right is that if the income of the CEO is in line with that of CEOs in other companies, then that salary package is just. My contention is that a company where the CEO gets 20 times what the lowest paid person in the company gets is more just than one where the multiple is 200.
The scriptures are replete with condemnation of the rich abusing the poor. Need I list them? Other than the admonition to the workman that he needs to do an honest days work I can't think of any scriptures that condemn the poor for abusing the rich. Can you?
On the question of metrics, we are obviously not connecting. If I read your metrics correctly, they have to do with family integrity. I agree with you that family integrity contributes substantially to quality of life. But I fail to see how your conclusion follows from the observations; that is, you conclude that unemployment insurance has resulted in the demise of family values. It could as easily be the influence of TV, or the influence of assembly line jobs, the move from rural areas to urban areas, education, or the greater disparity in wealth, etc.
My metrics are: The Equality Trust, which I have referenced numerous times; the fact that there are few beggars on the street, that few children starve to death, that the conditions Charles Dickens describes are not prevalent; that 62% of bankruptcies in 2007 in the USA were the result of a serious medical problem, whereas such bankruptcies hardly exist in countries with a government funded medical program, to name but a few. But none of what I have said should be interpreted to say that there is no room for improvement in the delivery of social services, and that a blanket increase in social service would be effective.
My comments again got too long for blogger. But now I have enough sense to save it before I lose it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the CWB, I have no intention of debating the merits of the CWB here. But I think it presents a good case study in the difference between the Right and the Left. To me the CWB stands for equal opportunity (not equality, not even close), and for this reason I support it. The opponents of the CWB [the Right] give a higher priority to individual freedom: that every farmer should have the right to market his wheat as he chooses. Everything else is tweaking. It's a no brainer to recognize that the wealthy farmer stands to gain much more from such freedom than a poor farmer, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. The points you raise have validity, but they hardly enter the ongoing debate here.
In my view there is a tendency on the Right to equate individual freedom (which they treasure greatly) with equal opportunity. I think it would be great if that were so. Unfortunately reality is different.
Dairy board equals supply management. Because supply management makes business entry difficult, it does not necessarily favour small farmers. The argument for supply management is stability, not profitability, and not prices. Furthermore, “best for society” and “cheapest food” is not the same thing. That opens another debate altogether.
University is liberal, in part because the right is biased anti-science? Really, I hope you don’t actually believe what you are implying. It implies you really believe, like Al Gore, that global warming is not only occuring but conclusively caused by people. Surely you realize that it remains a theory, and thousands of scientists disagree. I would have thought the fact that the global Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was proven to not have peer reviewed data and shown to intentionally manipulated data would have brought that to light (given their models are the ones used by the alaramists). Every month it seems the global warming alarmists are in retreat. This month NASA showed that in fact the UN models on global warming are grossly flawed and the atmosphere is not trapping nearly the carbon once thought. We know that alarmists were calling for global cooling in the 1970s, and many on the Right that they were rushing to judgment. Which side appeared to be anti-science in the end, and based on the constantly changing data and inputs, I think the Right in general is more rational on the topic of Global Warming than the alarmists on the Left.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that there are many metrics that could influence illegitimacy and that surely doesn’t prove that “Big Government” is bad. But I have also cited how poverty rate is unchanged from 1960, and I would cite more stats showing the Nanny State has been a failure. If you want to use your metric of the Equality Trust, the gap between rich and poor is wider today than it was 50 years ago, before the entitlement state. So even by your own metric the policies pushed by the Left have been a failure. Again, I understand many things influence these states but together they provide a window into how successful big government programs are. I am curious what metric you look at to say that the entitlement state has been a success?
You believe that the CEO that gets 200 times more than the lowest paid, is less just than the CEO that makes 20 x more than the lowest paid. I think it is very unclear, so many factors come into play. But let’s see if we find a point of clarity. What if the firm where the CEO earns 200X more than lowest paid (firm A), pays the lowest paid 100% higher than the equivalent employee at the firm where the CEO makes 20X more (firm B)? The lowest paid would be much better off working for firm A where the CEO gets 200X more right? I would say firm A is more just as he pays his employees better, and you I guess would say firm B is more just as it is more equal?
I cannot believe that Eric would think that the right are anti-science! Maybe some relgious right people are but economic conservatives are very strict about evidence based decision making. They like to look at the hard facts and not rely on airy fairy teachings. In my circles it is more the left learning people who like to rely on crystals, tarrot cards, and horoscope for money advice.
ReplyDeleteIt is lamentable that Stephen Harper said he was not interested in the research. He must have thought the resesarch was paid for by criminals. : )
Thanks to Eric for admiting to the leftist teachings at University. My cousin's son is taking his masters in Economics at McGill and he immediately classified his as a left wing faculty.
-Lori
It's my turn to be surprised. Both of you inferred something I did not say and did not intend to say. I thought I said quite clearly that I see nothing in conservative ideology that makes it anti-science. But I do hear Stephen Harper and members of the current expression of the Right make disparaging remarks about scientists [am I really the only one who hears this?]
ReplyDeleteSo for clarity:
ReplyDelete1) I am saying that the [current] Right finds information and opinion expressed by a think tank such as the Heartland Institute more reliable and unbiased than the work of the IPCC. I find myself at the polar opposite.
I think your comments confirmed that. I did a little research on the new NASA information you refer to. The science was done by Roy Spencer. Some information about Spencer can be found here http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer . It is apparent that Spencer is not unbiased (although that does not make him wrong). Some scientists http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/ think he does poor science. I do not have the background or time to understand all that is being said. James Taylor, the columnist who first ran the story in Forbes, is a fellow with the Heartland Institute. Again, that in itself does not invalidate what he writes.
On balance, I don't trust Spenser and Taylor. You do. On balance, I trust the scientists at the IPCC. You don't. We can talk about why, but that is another topic.
2) I am saying I think there are conservative thinkers who find themselves [or would find themselves] uncomfortable with the orientation of the current right, and probably do not identify with the current Republican party. Wouldn't you agree that Michele Bachman and Rick Perry have a better chance with the Republican party than John Huntsman. I predict it is only a matter of time before Huntsman will leave the Republican party. After he leaves the Republican party he will still be a conservative, just not a Republican conservative. I am also thinking of Eisenhower, the Rockefellers, and I'm sure I'd find others if I did the research.
Regarding metrics, I'm sorry, I do not follow your argument. Maybe I'm dense. So the poverty rate is unchanged since 1960. How is this proof that the “nanny state” has not worked? Maybe it's because the anti-poverty policies have been inadequate. Maybe they were inappropriate. And yes maybe, as you seem to suggest, if there would be no anti-poverty policies the poor would be better off. Although even you must admit that is counter-intuitive, and definitely un-biblical.
In comparing firm A and firm B, you are correct. In my view firm B is more just. I think we agree that justice is important, and I hope we agree that justice is a choice, not a circumstance. So in your view, what could firm B do to become more just? Could it CHOOSE to become more just? It's pretty clear to me what firm A could do to become more just. It could CHOOSE to alter the salary distribution.
Let me tell you how I have experienced life. I volunteered my services to MCC for six years. Volunteering in that context meant that food and lodging were looked after and we got a small amount of pocket money. We worked hard and were all happy and content. Had the MCC CEO driven around in a Mercedes, flashed rings on all of his fingers, and flown first class, I am sure we would not have been. Even if he could have brought in twice as much money, it would have destroyed MCC.
ReplyDeleteThen I was on salary for 12 years. The salary was modest, but adequate. I have no doubt I could have earned twice that in private business. At MCC there was a rule that the most highly paid employee could not earn more than 4X that of the lowest. We worked hard and were happy.
MEDA then invited me to take a position on their project in Tanzania, because it was a project to improve the way oxen were used, and they had no one with the experience I had had with oxen. They offered me significantly more than I had been getting at MCC. It turned out that we were a team of four; the project was to introduce new technology into a particular area, and I was the only one with relevant technological experience. I was happy, in fact very happy – the best job I ever had – until:
Until, I found out that the other three members of the team were getting substantially more than I was getting. I found this to be profoundly unjust. It spoiled my experience with MEDA. As I saw it, they were getting more because they came from business where their salary was higher than at MEDA. So their salary had moved down, while mine had moved up.
I believe most people are like me – they recognize that not everyone in the firm is worth the same amount of salary. There must, and will be differential. But when we see that differential unwarranted, our sense of justice is offended. In my experience, justice has little to do with amount, and lots to do with distribution.
I am finding your last three comments Eric to be very well explained. I would like to say that had the MCC overseer been driving a mercedes and flashing rings it would be offensive as MCC gets most of their funding from donations don't they? That is what would be offensive. The MCC scenario is much different from a company on the stock exchange.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you were very happy in the best job yet, and even though the job stayed the same you found you did not like it anymore because other people made more money than you did. Good case for salaries remaining private. or put another way, "ignorance is bliss." I do understand your feelings, since your perception was that their skill set was no more valuable than yours and maybe even less so.
Thanks for your clarification and sorry I missed it the first time. You are saying that current leaders on the right appear anti-science, not that it is a platform of the right to be so.
- Lori
You got it Lori. And I am also saying that somewhere within me there is this sense, a very profound one, that justice has more to do with distribution than amount. Am I alone? That is not to say that amount is insignificant. It is very significant.
ReplyDeleteI can conceive of a situation where I would choose to work for firm A because it was the only way I could get enough money to feed my family. But that would not alter my opinion as to which of the two firms were more just. In other words, it may be necessary, under some circumstances, to work for the more successful firm (firm B seems close to bankruptcy, for some reason, but that's another story), rather than the more just firm. But we are not now talking about good and evil -- or are we!
I am in the delivery room with Chi, as she is giving birth today. Good news is she is sleeping, so that partially vindicates me in quickly responding (ie, i am not responding as she is going through large contractions, even I would concede that would be weird). However, I may not get to every point this week.
ReplyDeleteSo this is productive, and I am glad we have clarity, in you finding firm B more just while I find firm A more just. What could B do to be more just in my view you ask? It could pay its low-end employees more, it is as simple as that assuming the employees are doing a good job. Firm B may also want to consider firing the CEO or others, as perhaps they are not managing things well.
I appreciate your perspective, my experience and perspective is a little different. The last few firms I worked at, had incompetent CEOs. While they made perhaps "only" 10-15X more than I did, they did not have the vision to grow or expand the firm and provide more opportunities (hence they were way overpaid in my view). Additionally, I was aware that I was being paid less than my market value. At my current employer, my CEO probably makes 300X more than I do. I am thrilled that he does, as he started the firm (unlike the CEOs at the other firms) and provides me with substantially more opportunity, influence, and pay than my prior employers. Without the CEO taking the risk to start this type of firm, I would not be employed at such a fun and challenging place. I realize that him earning a lot of money, does not mean I or the economy at large have less money (neither a company or the economy is a zero sum game). As an aside, one year the firm had a terrible here, and his pay that year was MINUS $500 MILLION, as a few key decisions lost the firm a lot of money, so he paid out of his own pocket (not the company pocket, as the firm lost massive amounts) all those that did produce a very generous bonus.
If I felt like the CEO has being unfairly compensated, I could leave the firm, or work at starting my own firm. I however do know what the market is paying for skills like mine, and I feel like I am fortunate to be where I am.
If we are seeking clarity vs agreement, perhaps we have achieved it on this issue, and I think shows how you place greater value on equality and I place more value on opportunity, is that a fair conclusion?
I understand form another e-mail that congratulations are in order. Well done!
ReplyDeleteYes, the clarity is helpful, but I am not convinced that you mean what you say with respect to firm B, a firm of our creation. Maybe you do. Since all firm B is paying all its employees mcuch than firm A, it has clearly been less successful than firm A. There could be many reasons for that, and certainly one of them could be incompetence at the top. If such incompetence is reasonably clear, I agree that the replacing of the CEO might be a move towards justice. You suggest "it could pay its low end employees more". If that is the solution, surely you are contradicting yourself, because that could only be done by paying the CEO less.
To me this is an important question. Since the CEO has the power to decide how much of the salary/wage pot to keep for himself, and how much to distribute, what ought his criteria to be as he decides how to use this power he has?
You obviously have a job you love, but aren't you introducing the elelment of risk into this discussion. I was hoping to keep that out, in order to keep the discussion simple. Isn't a substantial portion of the return your current CEO getting, return to risk? Your previous CEOs, on the other hand, not having started the company, were not getting return to risk. When you say they were overpaid, are you not commenting on the justice of their share of the salary pot?
One last? comment about entitlement. I have a lawyer friend who deals in family law. He tells me, not infrequently a woman comes to him who has been treated abominably by her husband, and she is now divorcing. Of course the husbands treatment does not change, and she does not get her entitlement, and ends up fighting for it for many years. What grieves my lawyer friend is to see this woman destroy herself as she fights for her entitlement. She would have been much better off if she had let the entitlement go and gotten on with her life.
That story, in many respects, is identical to my story of my relationship with MEDA and repeats itself at many places in society. However, for the husband to argue that she should not pursue her entitlement because that pursuit will destroy her, is surely not a justice statement.
"Entitlement" may be a bad, destructive concept when applied to oneself, but recognizing that reality, does not help us as a society discover who is entitled to what.
As to your conclusion, That's probably a good place to leave it for now.
I don’t believe I am contradicting myself when I say firm B should either fire the CEO or pay employees more. Yes, if the CEO does not do his job, he should take less of the share. My view is that a CEO should pay their employees at least fairly (if not a little better). If they are doing that, I could care less if the CEO earns the same as the low-level employee, or 1000X more. On the margin, I would prefer they make 1000X more all things equal, as ultimately rich people build universities, hospitals and other things society benefits from. If the CEO is doing such a good job that they are able to keep employees, pay them at least the market rate, then they are doing a good job and I don’t care what they get paid. We don’t live in an economy where those that choose to work hard and want to get paid more don’t have that opportunity. If becoming CEO was a birthright issue (ie, people were born as CEOs, and others born as low level employees, independent of the work they do) then of course I would find them being paid 1000X more than others offensive. But the reason would be the conservative desire for opportunity – and not the issue of equality of results.
ReplyDeleteMy function at work is to follow companies (largely the largest 200 technology companies in the world) and there is a system of checks and balances for CEO pay for most large companies (particularly in the US). First, there is a board of directors that decides the pay (not the CEO) and in general as a shareholder I tend to avoid companies where the CEO is on the board and therefore not independent. Second, most CEO pay (90%+) is variable, in that they get paid well based on the price of the stocks, or incremental share of profits - so in bad years they get paid much less than low-level employees in that they lose money on their variable pay (their stock options go down). Third, from a common sense standpoint, employee turnover would be high if the CEO is greedy and only enrich themselves when the company does well. These CEOs therefore don’t keep their jobs, and I see that time and again.