Monday, November 25, 2013

LEGISLATING WEALTH

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

This quote is from one of my favorite spiritual leaders, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers.
Now whether you are a believer, non-believer, agnostic or atheist, that statement is true. You may denigrate its speaker if you are so inclined, but you will only be demonstrating your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That statement defines the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you CAN legislate the poor into freedom if you can just get enough wealthy people to give up (or have confiscated) part of their wealth (Think 1%ers). Liberals believe that people who do not work should be sustained, regardless of the reason for their not working, and if they have some kind of addiction or social aberration, so much the better. They also believe that if you just spread the wealth everybody will be happy, quite apart from any incentive to be productive. And now it seems they believe that there is a heretofore unknown right to have any illness treated and paid for by the rest of the citizenry.
They believe that economy is a zero sum “game,” and that there is a finite amount of money available. They do not get the relationship between productivity and the increase in the overall wealth of the people.

They are running headstrong into the direction of taking The United States of America down and turning it into the same governmental chaos that prevails in most of the rest of the world.
Thanks, libs.

11 comments:

Progressive Disruptions said...

How many times are these liberals gonna repeat this ridiculous claim? If Obama wasn't over-spending, the debt wouldn't be $7 trillion higher than it was when he came into office. The facts just ain't on your side. Sorry you libaturds. I ain't buying it.

Craig said...

Liberals believe that people who do not work should be sustained, regardless of the reason for their not working

No, Joe. You've bought into this silly caricature of Liberals. We believe people should work and that workers should be paid enough to not have to rely on govt. programs to make ends meet. Those programs should exist for those who truly can't work or can't find work. When nearly half of Walmart's full time workers qualify for SNAP, the problem isn't the program, it's the employer. The Walton family recently purchased $16B of their own stock. That did nothing for the co. other than drive up the price for other investors and consolidate their grip on the co.

If they had invested that $16B into their workers it would amount to a $5/hr. raise for every employee. That wouldn't have raised prices one cent and resulted in a more productive workforce, less turnover and more money in the economy. Does Dr. of economics, Adrian Rogers know about the multiplier effect? Fun fact: Six Walton family members own more wealth than the bottom 40% of American families. Apparently that's not enough. Their answer is food drives for their employees in their own break rooms.

They believe that economy is a zero sum “game,” and that there is a finite amount of money available.

At any one time, there is a finite amount of money.

They do not get the relationship between productivity and the increase in the overall wealth of the people.

I understand it all too well. Productivity continues to rise while wages remain stagnant. This chart compiled from BLS numbers couldn't be any clearer. Most of the growth in wealth has gone to the top 1%.

The system is rigged, Joe. The people with all money have tipped the playing field in their direction and you enable them to your own detriment. You've swallowed the Rand/ Hayak BS that everyone acting in their own self interest will make everyone free and self sufficient. It ain't working. It's only made the 'haves' more self interested. Rand believed charity and empathy are not moral virtues and selfishness is. You may not agree with that, but that is exactly what you are preaching.

Duckys here said...

"They do not get the relationship between productivity and the increase in the overall wealth of the people."

------
So if wages are reduced, therefore increasing productivity or if hiring is reduced, therefore increasing productivity is there an increase in the overall wealth of the people?
Or is there a transfer of wealth to the Walton girls in Craig's example?

Does that excess capital which goes to the Walton girls create real growth or asset bubbles, Joe?
Does it increase employment?

Joe, what's the multiplier effect of food stamps?

Joe said...

Craig: "We believe people should work and that workers should be paid enough to not have to rely on govt. programs to make ends meet."

Your actions for the last 70 years say differently.

"...half of Walmart's full time workers qualify for SNAP, the problem isn't the program,..."

Yes, it is the program, and only the program. Walmart's full time workers qualify for SNAP because the government has restricted and regulated Walmart (and other producers) to the Nth degree.

"Productivity continues to rise..."

No. The measurement of productivity as determined by the government is skewed to look like it has risen for the very purpose of empowering the government.

Unless people like you begin to understand that, we're doomed. And you never will. I promise you that.

Ducky: " wages are reduced, therefore increasing productivity or if hiring is reduced,"

Exactly wrong. The opposite of what I said. Producing things is productivity, not wages.

Duckys here said...

@Joe --- Producing things is productivity, not wages.

----
Joe, have did you ever take an economics course or read a text?
Here's a basic example of productivity.

1. Worker A produces 1 widget per hour and is paid $5.

2. Worker B produces 1 widget per hour and is paid $10.

Which worker is more productive?
Hint: Worker A is twice as productive.
You really should do a little studying.

How has Walmart been regulated and how has that caused the depressed wages?
Your answer should be interesting.

Remember: Liberals are here t help you live the life of he mind.


Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "No. The measurement of productivity as determined by the government is skewed to look like it has risen for the very purpose of empowering the government."

WOW! Conspiracy theories? Seriously?

What's next Joe? Bilderbergers? Rockefellers? Trilateral Commission? The Illuminati? Cloward-Piven?

Maybe ancient aliens from the center of our Hollow Earth?

Get a grip, Joe. You're losing it.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Walmart's full time workers qualify for SNAP because the government has restricted and regulated Walmart (and other producers) to the Nth degree."

That is a complete crock of crap. And you know it.

Name any and all government regulations that you think are so strangling Walmart that their employees have to apply for government assistance just to survive and feed their families while the Walton family are all multi-billionaires.

Go ahead Joe. Enlighten us.

But we all know you won't because you can't. The facts have never been on your side. Ever.

Craig said...

Your actions for the last 70 years say differently

Really? Here's the score card on private sector job growth.

Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.

Reagan and W. did beat Obama in public sector job growth.

No. The measurement of productivity as determined by the government is skewed to look like it has risen for the very purpose of empowering the government

PRODUCTIVITYGATE!!! Call Darrel Issa!

Craig said...

Forgot to mention. You see by the stats that private sector job growth over the last 52 years under Dems is nearly double that of R's. R's held the White House for 28 of those years, Dems only 24.

Duckys here said...

Joe, I'd say this round went to the libs.

Joe said...

Ducky: It's my blog and I get to judge.

Verdict: I win.