The only people I see pushing this distinction are people like you doing so as a strawman argument. So I second your call of bullshit.
You are calling bullshit on what, exactly? Please elucidate. Elaborate. Amplify.
You asked in the OP why middle class (and lower) Dopers voted Republican. We answered you.
So what’s the problem? I’m confused.
I’m not entirely sure I understand your point, here.
To me, the proverbial exemplar of self-reliance treats sissy-pants humanists the exact same way he treats the forces of wealth and power: he’s willing to do business with either if and only if he figures it’s worth his while, decides for himself whether to accept or walk away when either makes a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and asks nothing more of the government in either case than to uphold property rights on both sides and enforce mutually-agreed-upon contracts and thus and such. Why does that count as standing proud and defiant in one case and count as bending obediently in the other?
Because - as far as the work ethic goes anyway - it’s been coopted to the point that it means taking it in the pants from whoever promises you a living. That is your duty now; that is our morality.
Who can refute a sneer? I don’t believe I’ve contracted for a deal like that; you do; we’re at an impasse.
I’m afraid we didn’t provide the answer she was looking for.
Any basic economics textbook will show this. Someone without any economics textbooks could try looking on the internet. Try here. This is really basic stuff that Krugman and Friedman aren’t going to argue about.
The big point of international trade models is that** with redistribution** (e.g., through taxation), reductions in trade restrictions have the potential to make everyone in the country better off. Funny how conservatives always forget that bolded part; must not be covered in “Basic Economics for Partisans.” You won’t find any real economist of any political persuasion who would say anything silly like “trade will make everyone better off.”
In fact, the “will make everyone better off” part of your statement is clearly and plainly wrong (in the absence of redistribution); it requires a normative judgment that every “basic economics” textbook will warn against.
And note the “generally” qualifier in my second paragraph. Trade restrictions can make everyone in a country better off. Again, start with your basic economics textbook models and assume one trading partner is smaller than the other countries, and draw the offer curves.
Can this be extrapolated to small industries within a large country? Intermediate economics awaits!
Can I opt for lethal injection?
There are dozens of economics models that show how trade restrictions can benefit countries, many of which are discussed even in basic economics textbooks. In even the simplest trade models small countries can strip out all the worldwide benefits from trade by enacting tariffs on their trade with larger countries.
Lots of papers on industries which require critical domestic mass to get started; it’s simple to model industries which have barriers to entry where barriers to trade result in long-run higher equilibrium being reached than in the absence of trade. There was a whole industry of these papers trying to explain the Pacific Rim successes.
Even in models which result in benefits from trade, those benefits are unequally distributed, and (in the absence of redistribution) could easily result in 99% of the population being made worse off through trade. Saying that the country is better off through trade in this case is, like I told the other guy, committing the first sin that basic economics textbooks warn against.
This is the narrative:
Poor people can’t get ahead without help.
The government is trying to help poor people.
Some poor people won’t accept the help.
Therefore, these people are uneducated or stupid because they don’t recognize what the government is trying to do for them.
This is why Evil Captor assumed that I must have inherited wealth. He can’t conceive of people who start out poor, don’t take government handouts, and yet wind up reasonably successful. It does not compute.
I’ve heard this a million times. When I was in college, it was common to hear some liberal expound on how helpless the poor were, and how it was simply impossible to get ahead without a hand up. Said liberal would usually be from some upper-middle class home.
The worst offender I knew was a sincere ‘man of the people’ who was absolutely certain that the rich were keeping the poor down, and that it was impossible for the poor to lift themselves up. He was their self-appointed advocate. Of course, HIS father was a professor at the same college, and he’d never known a day of poverty in his life. But he was absolutely sure he knew what it was like and how impossible it was to escape - without the help of people such as himself.
That’s also the essential conceit of Frank Rich’s book. The entire tone of it is, “Are you people STUPID? Can’t you see we’re trying to HELP you? All we want is a little more power and control, and you’ll get everything you want! And yet you turn us away. What’s the matter with Kansas?”
Some liberals (usually the ones from wealthy backgrounds) just can’t imagine that there are people out there who are poor yet not particularly looking for the nanny state to help them - that they just want all those ‘helpful’ bureaucrats to get out of their way and the social workers and community organizers to go home so they can get on living their own lives.
I don’t know if liberals can see just how disempowering their activism is. When community organizers and activists go into poor communities and tell people to stand up for their rights and demand help from the government, they’re telling them that they can’t make it on their own, that their fate is in someone else’s hands, and that they are incapable of making it out of poverty unless the government gives them a leg up.
My wife told me a story that happened just last week, where a single mother with a child tried to make an appointment with a doctor. The only doctor available was across town. This woman immediately said that it was impossible for her to get there - after all, she had a child and no babysitter, and no car. So it just couldn’t be done. She needed special accommodation. The social worker involved immediately agreed with her, told her it wasn’t her fault, and agreed to work through the system to find her a doctor in her local community.
That woman had just had her helplessness validated. She’s been told that she’s incapable of doing what other people do every day. And none of it is her fault. The system has failed her. There must be amends. How horrible it all is.
What she should have been told: “This city has public transportation. Let me show you how to use it. The buses are full of mothers with children. Your situation is unfortunate, but it’s reality. Unless you want to be helpless, you need to learn how to care for yourself and your child - even when it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient. Even if it seems nearly impossible.”
Liberals do this disempowering thing all the time. They gain political support and power every time they convince someone that the system is broken for them, that they are helpless and must vote in the liberals to save them with the power of government. You can see that attitude in every welfare neighborhood, in every project, in every population that has come to depend on the government. Helplessness, anger, and entitlement replace stoicism, determination, and self-improvement. And in the end you wind up with disaffected populations, ghettos, and institutionalized poverty.
I don’t know what Stoid was hoping to find in this thread, but I don’t think she found it.
What an illustrative and poignant anecdote, Sam. But I’m even more impressed by your awesome power of inductive reasoning, how, with only a few second hand facts, you peer into another and take her inventory, and offer stern admonishment on how she might improve herself, so that she might some day rise in your esteem.
But you left some stuff out. Like how liberals think they know other people better than they know themselves, and know whats best for them better than they. And then a reference to liberal hypocrisy, just to touch all the bases. Oh, and more cowbell.
I’ve got a fever, and the only cure is more poignant anecdotes!
Are you sure its not irony-poor blood?
Pretty sure. I even gave a transfusion to a guy who was hit by a Red Cross truck. It was pretty ironically poignant, anecdotally speaking.
Sorry. It’s not every day I have a chance to quote Cool, Cool Considerate Men.
Look, Milton Friedman posited that consumers act rationally.
Umm. . .I disagree. This may have been the case a generation or two ago, but I just don’t see it happening now.
But, just because in your one singular data point you were able to find a career which is a net positive for you means that everybody else can too if they just look hard enough? And if they can’t find it it’s all their fault, and we can wash our hands of, as both you and Maule Man have repeatedly stated, of any sort of responsibility on the part of employers to ensure that such openings are available for every single American who wants them?
Okay say you take 100 poor people, of whatever ages, married single young old, and you infuse them with the get-go spirit, convince them to undergo training, do whatever it takes to lift themselves by their own bootstraps.
Okay.
Then who is left to flip the burgers, dig the ditches, mop the floors, and do all those other menial, inherently low-paying yet necessary tasks that our society depends on? If every single one of those 100 people is now an entrepreneur, tech wizard, stock broker, or whatever is now letting them rake in the bucks and use them to light their $500 cigars, do the burgers now go unflipped, the ditches un-dug, the floors getting all grody with mold?
Once you realize that having winners and losers in a capitalistic society is completely unavoidable, are you then also against a realistic minimum wage for the “losers”? Or do you continue to stick to your guns at this point and let the have-nots suffer merely because they did not “try” hard enough? Are you truly happy with this sort of cruel Social Darwinist utopia? I’m not (note I didn’t say “would be”).
In answer to your earlier idea, yes, I DO think business owes us-it owes us a great deal. The profit motive is a horrible thing on which to run a society; I’m sure you are aware of what the Tragedy of the Commons is? Must compassion, love, honor and other such unrealistic ideals be tossed by the wayside? Even if you still don’t think such things need to be considerations in any financial transaction, do you at least agree about the terrible hidden costs (which will come due down the road, sooner or later) every time two parties sign a deal to drain a wetland, pollute a river, cut down a forest, or build a C02 spewing plant, and that such costs must, if both parties were perfectly rational, must be part of any deal?
The Tragedy of the Commons is an argument for private property ownership, instead of collective ownership. Your concerns about pollution fall under what the economists call “externalities” that we are working on categorizing and pricing. Cap and Trade, for example, is a system for putting a price on the right to pollute.
As for your question of who should flip burgers? They should be flipped by whoever has ended up a burger flipper. When I was a kid, the burger flippers from 3:00 PM until late night were high school students learning to hold a job. The same for grocery baggers, and lots of other entry-level jobs. Some people stuck it out and became Managers, others drift from entry-level job to entry-level job. Economists argue whether minimum wage helps or hurts the entry level worker (reduces the number of jobs, but increases the pay for those jobs). Would you rather be unemployed, or employed at a lower rate?
More importantly, they argue about whether minimum wages create jobs (people earning more money creates demand for goods that drives job growth). Given the strong evidence that minimum wage increases can create jobs, seems like we can have the best of both worlds.
Then all we need do is increase the minimum wage to $100 an hour, and solve all our economic problems at a stroke. Create a lot of jobs, and pump billions of dollars into the economy.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Regards,
Shodan