Comments on: This Is What I Mean… http://davebudge.com/?p=1421 Finance, Economics & Random Musings Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Gman http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-190564 Gman Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:12:50 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-190564 What's interesting about Singer's post over at LITW is that he's the first to label WalMart at a social pariah while bemoaning the plight of young workers. I bet there are a lot of young workers with families that shop at WalMart and save several hundred dollars annually. Singer, like many, are afraid of freedom. They are fixated on security, not freedom. How can one succeed without the assurance of some social safety net? Like you, Dave, I worked my way through school -- back when school was affordable. Tell me, Matt, when students get loans to pay for college, do you really think they're only getting a loan for the actual cost of tuition? No, not at all; they are getting a loan that enables them to live the same standard of living afforded by their parents. In other words, their loan pays for no job, car payments, rent, mass entertainment, cell phone, laptop, iPod, and heavy consumerism. So, when they get out of college with that ball and chain of debt, I'm not exactly sorry for them. Moreover, I don't believe that I, or any of my fellow citizens, should have to insulate them from their bad decisions. Another thing that Singer, Mark T, et al always, always leave out are the unintended consequences of paternalistic gov't. Chiefly, the perpetuation of irresponsibility and the entitlement mentality. Moreover, can policy makers truly determine at what point a person is simply experiencing "hard luck" and deserves a helping hand from the public? Could it be that public assistance will lead an individual into a cycle of poverty? Ludwig von Mises said something pertinent here: "Freedom is the freedom to make mistakes." We learn from mistakes. Singer et al also totally disregard the morality of using the coercive power of gov't to take from one person to give it to another. They also conveniently ignore the fact that big gov't is the reason many workers can't afford cars, gas, health care, so on, so forth. Sure, it would be great to give these young kids a boost after getting out of college. The best boost they can get is to get a job, start saving, avoid consumerism, stay healthy, etc. Gov't is the last thing they need. In fact, when they get into their thirties and actually start making decent incomes, they will soon learn that profligate, confiscatory gov't is their worst enemy. They will begin to realize that the gov't exists not to protect their rights but to manipulate their behavior and beliefs with public policies and the tax code. I can't help but quote Thomas Jefferson, who warned us that gov't sponsored security is the enemy of liberty. To wit, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Singer et al are timid men. What’s interesting about Singer’s post over at LITW is that he’s the first to label WalMart at a social pariah while bemoaning the plight of young workers. I bet there are a lot of young workers with families that shop at WalMart and save several hundred dollars annually. Singer, like many, are afraid of freedom. They are fixated on security, not freedom. How can one succeed without the assurance of some social safety net? Like you, Dave, I worked my way through school — back when school was affordable. Tell me, Matt, when students get loans to pay for college, do you really think they’re only getting a loan for the actual cost of tuition? No, not at all; they are getting a loan that enables them to live the same standard of living afforded by their parents. In other words, their loan pays for no job, car payments, rent, mass entertainment, cell phone, laptop, iPod, and heavy consumerism. So, when they get out of college with that ball and chain of debt, I’m not exactly sorry for them. Moreover, I don’t believe that I, or any of my fellow citizens, should have to insulate them from their bad decisions.

Another thing that Singer, Mark T, et al always, always leave out are the unintended consequences of paternalistic gov’t. Chiefly, the perpetuation of irresponsibility and the entitlement mentality. Moreover, can policy makers truly determine at what point a person is simply experiencing “hard luck” and deserves a helping hand from the public? Could it be that public assistance will lead an individual into a cycle of poverty? Ludwig von Mises said something pertinent here: “Freedom is the freedom to make mistakes.” We learn from mistakes. Singer et al also totally disregard the morality of using the coercive power of gov’t to take from one person to give it to another. They also conveniently ignore the fact that big gov’t is the reason many workers can’t afford cars, gas, health care, so on, so forth.

Sure, it would be great to give these young kids a boost after getting out of college. The best boost they can get is to get a job, start saving, avoid consumerism, stay healthy, etc. Gov’t is the last thing they need. In fact, when they get into their thirties and actually start making decent incomes, they will soon learn that profligate, confiscatory gov’t is their worst enemy. They will begin to realize that the gov’t exists not to protect their rights but to manipulate their behavior and beliefs with public policies and the tax code.

I can’t help but quote Thomas Jefferson, who warned us that gov’t sponsored security is the enemy of liberty. To wit, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.” Singer et al are timid men.

]]> By: Morton Rees http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-183645 Morton Rees Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:58:27 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-183645 Dave— You can’t do anything with these people. They have no grasp of economics. They think “business” is some entity divorced from society, and you can do whatever you please to business with no negative consequences for society. You can tax business with impunity, regulate it to death, or just expropriate its property. Whatever. All of these socialist wannabes, like Singer and Tokarski, need to read Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson,” if only to stop making fools of themselves in public. The Lesson: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” On the other hand, I don’t think there is any help for somebody like Colby Natale. He theorizes that everything could become too expense for everyone. And then what happens? Prices keep going up, right, Colby? Dave— You can’t do anything with these people. They have no grasp of economics. They think “business” is some entity divorced from society, and you can do whatever you please to business with no negative consequences for society. You can tax business with impunity, regulate it to death, or just expropriate its property. Whatever.

All of these socialist wannabes, like Singer and Tokarski, need to read Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson,” if only to stop making fools of themselves in public.

The Lesson: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

On the other hand, I don’t think there is any help for somebody like Colby Natale. He theorizes that everything could become too expense for everyone. And then what happens? Prices keep going up, right, Colby?

]]> By: David http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-183477 David Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:59:41 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-183477 I suppose there would, at least for a time. During the depression is was common that kids couldn't get started in life and had to band together with other family members. My father and his family lived with 15 people other (from three other married families of siblings) in a 4 bedroom house. It wasn't until WWII that that they all moved out and could afford their own places. But we're not there now and history tells us that economic cycles make adjustments toward equilibrium in the long run. I suppose there would, at least for a time. During the depression is was common that kids couldn’t get started in life and had to band together with other family members. My father and his family lived with 15 people other (from three other married families of siblings) in a 4 bedroom house. It wasn’t until WWII that that they all moved out and could afford their own places.

But we’re not there now and history tells us that economic cycles make adjustments toward equilibrium in the long run.

]]> By: colby natale http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-183473 colby natale Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:47:48 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-183473 Dave, Given what Mark brought up (as well as your response), I would like to ask: Would there ever be a cost point for getting started (costs of rent, food, gas, etc) that would preclude the notion that straight up hard work is enough? Is it possible for the economic hardships for young people (even if they had no music, lattes, and beer) to become so large that they actually cannot make it on their own? Dave,
Given what Mark brought up (as well as your response), I would like to ask: Would there ever be a cost point for getting started (costs of rent, food, gas, etc) that would preclude the notion that straight up hard work is enough? Is it possible for the economic hardships for young people (even if they had no music, lattes, and beer) to become so large that they actually cannot make it on their own?

]]> By: David http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182961 David Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:14:26 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182961 Mark, I never had any doubt. Mark, I never had any doubt.

]]> By: Mark Tokarski http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182696 Mark Tokarski Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:41:18 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182696 By the way, if you are checking IP's I'm in a motel in Billings, but totally up-front with you. I am who am. By the way, if you are checking IP’s I’m in a motel in Billings, but totally up-front with you. I am who am.

]]> By: David http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182684 David Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:34:17 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182684 At least I'm not a troll. At least I’m not a troll.

]]> By: MT Wilderness Hunter http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182674 MT Wilderness Hunter Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:31:12 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182674 Dave wrote, "I support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, the right to sell pron [sic], etc." Oh, so you're a “neo-socialist hand wringing pussy." I get it. Sorry for the mistake on my part regarding the "Family Values" thing. I pledge to pay closer attention in the future. And, by the way, before casting some off the wall “name-calling” you would do better.... Dave wrote, “I support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, the right to sell pron [sic], etc.”

Oh, so you’re a “neo-socialist hand wringing pussy.” I get it.

Sorry for the mistake on my part regarding the “Family Values” thing. I pledge to pay closer attention in the future.

And, by the way, before casting some off the wall “name-calling” you would do better….

]]> By: Mark Tokarski http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182661 Mark Tokarski Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:27:09 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182661 I thought the Montana Wilderness guy made a good joke. All I was doing was to use a cocktail napkin to draw a curve to see where interests collide. I used an obvious example, and said that the rest is what we debate. You replied by giving your side of that debate, which is reasonable, but with which I disagree - I place more emphasis on societal responsibility, and impose more costs on business than you. I thought the Montana Wilderness guy made a good joke.

All I was doing was to use a cocktail napkin to draw a curve to see where interests collide. I used an obvious example, and said that the rest is what we debate. You replied by giving your side of that debate, which is reasonable, but with which I disagree – I place more emphasis on societal responsibility, and impose more costs on business than you.

]]> By: David http://davebudge.com/?p=1421&cpage=1#comment-182617 David Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:03:55 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1421#comment-182617 Mark, what do you mean that you've had the whole debate. Although you bring up the issue of "public goods" - such as the environment, I don't know where I've ever said that any business has the right to spoil those goods for their own profit. In fact, I have said in the past that the protection of public goods doesn't depart from the libertarian ideology. That said, there is a canyon of difference between me and many on what exactly is a public good. I will stipulate that air and water qualify to the extent that they cannot be sequestered by property definitions. There are others as well. But I argue with you that high profits are, in fact, a right by virtue of the fact that society should not have the right to limit them - provided they are made inside the construct of robust competition. MT Wildernesshunter, WTF are you talking about? What does this have to do with "family values" (and if you had spent any significant time on this site you would know that I have NEVER promoted the right wings version of such.) I support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, the right to sell pron, etc. Before casting some off the wall "observation" you would do better to know what you're talking about. Mark, what do you mean that you’ve had the whole debate. Although you bring up the issue of “public goods” – such as the environment, I don’t know where I’ve ever said that any business has the right to spoil those goods for their own profit. In fact, I have said in the past that the protection of public goods doesn’t depart from the libertarian ideology. That said, there is a canyon of difference between me and many on what exactly is a public good. I will stipulate that air and water qualify to the extent that they cannot be sequestered by property definitions. There are others as well.

But I argue with you that high profits are, in fact, a right by virtue of the fact that society should not have the right to limit them – provided they are made inside the construct of robust competition.

MT Wildernesshunter, WTF are you talking about? What does this have to do with “family values” (and if you had spent any significant time on this site you would know that I have NEVER promoted the right wings version of such.) I support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, the right to sell pron, etc. Before casting some off the wall “observation” you would do better to know what you’re talking about.

]]>