“It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.” That was the reaction of Rep. Paul Ryan to the ongoing demonstrations in opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to declaw the state’s public employees’ unions by prohibiting collective bargaining. But while the imagery smacks of the popular uprising against a tinpot Arab despot, the roles are reversed, with Wisconsin’s protestors clamoring to uphold an antequated system that is robbing the nation of much of its wealth, all to line the pockets of the state’s many vassals.
Like the upheavel half a world away, the happenings in Wisconsin are proving to be a bellwether moment in our nation’s evolution, as a collection of largely Rust Belt Republican governors, charged with the unenviable task of modernizing a regional economy that was designed for the mid-20th Century and not the early 21st Century, are attempting to move their states forward at a time when America as a whole could easily plunge into a sea of red ink that would bring with it the decline and fall of the American Empire. What happens in Wisconsin will signal whether the nation as a whole is prepared to move into an era of smaller government, freer markets, less debt, and greater innovation, or whether we’re going to pretend that we can go back to an economic model that has long since dissipated.
I spent a fair amount of time today gauging the American Left’s position on the issue, as presented by State-Run Radio, more commonly known as NPR. The arguments being made by the Left convinced me more than ever that today’s Democratic Party is less concerned with “winning the future,” than with retreating into the past. To the Left, America could simply click its heels and be transported back into the 1950s. Not only could all public employees be protected by unions, private employees would be universally protected as well, and we’d all have the iron-clad benefits that today’s public employees enjoy. Stagnating wages would be forced up, and the only ones who would suffer would be the dastardly rich. Oh, and if we don’t follow this particular yellow brick road back to Oz, we will all soon watch in horror as corporations, without unions to balance them out, transform the American workforce into a Third World-style slave labor camp.
There is so much nonsense here that I’m not even sure where to start. The overall problem with the Left’s Roadmap to Ruin, it seems, is the assumption that a 1950s economic analysis can be applied to the world of 2011. This is prima facie absurd, and it doesn’t take a student of economics to understand why. Before I go any farther, let me assure the reader that I understand the importance of private employees’ unions in the development of an industrial economy. These unions are probably a necessity during a certain stage in a society’s economic maturation. But in today’s American economy, a largely post-industrial economy, unions are far less relevant, which is why they’ve all but disappeared in the private sector. Today’s economy is largely driven by a variety of employers, large and small, competing for individual employees with specific skill sets. This is not the sort of economic model that lends itself to a few powerful robber barons turning a vast under-educated populace into serfs, which is what the Left seems to believe will occur without unions.
Not only would unionization make little sense in most of today’s America, where individual skills and talents are paramount, but the market-distorting effects that unions have on wages and benefits would almost certainly do to America’s private sector what the unions have done to the public sector. In the past, I have been very critical of many on the Right for failing to address the stagnation of middle class wages in this country, but what the Left is suggesting is not to move those wages upward via growth, but to essentially redistribute the pie coercively, which will ultimately destroy jobs and send more and more employers overseas. At this point, leftists usually suggest putting up barriers to free trade. That would be all good and well were it not for the fact that American companies like GM are able to sell far more products to the Chinese than to Americans. If corporations are able to both make things in China, and sell the things that they make to the Chinese, what is the purpose of the U.S? America is becoming an afterthought.
And that dynamic pretty much sums up the reason that the American economy can’t be shifted into reverse, as it were, and returned to a more union-friendly era. Think about what the world was like in the 1950s. Europe had literally been blown to pieces. It was barely visible through the postwar haze. China was still a sleepy, Communist country. The Iron Curtain was in place, and everyone knew their place in the world. Now, the EU is rearing its head, China continues to outpace America, and a billion hungry Asians are about to tell us all what’s what. But despite all of that, we’re really going to solve all of our problems by ending free trade, making every American a union member, and taxing the rich? Really?
A bright future for America will not come through collective bargaining, but through individual empowerment. It will not be the result of fortifying an outdated economic model, but innovation that yields new growth. America is an actor in a global economy and nothing can change that. We have to make sure that we’re the best place in the world to do business, and that our workforce is a highly-skilled, highly-educated workforce. And we can’t do any of this while on the verge of default, which is why the fiscal house must be put in order. One necessary, but not sufficient, step to doing all of this is to restructure the outmoded manner by which government does business, and that means ending the ability of public employees’ unions to prevent those reforms.
Unfortunately, the President of the United States has shown himself, time and time again, to be on the wrong side of history at this pivotal moment. His refusal to address the long-term debt via entitlement reform was evidence of this, and his decision to come to the aid of Gov. Walker’s foes in Wisconsin should remove any doubt that President Obama does not understand the direction in which this country needs to go on economic and fiscal matters. The Republican Party has a real chance to make history next year by nominating a candidate with the courage to move the tectonic plates on these economic and fiscal issues, and with the proven ability to do so. Gov. Walker is one such candidate, but he’s got his hands full. Gov. Christie is another such candidate, and should he choose to run, he could do so late in 2011, with three legislative sessions fully under his substantial belt. That would be far more experience than Barack Obama had going into his presidential run. And then there’s Gov. Daniels, who has run the Christie/Walker gauntlet, but in a quiet way, a manner that leaves many on the Right unconvinced and wanting more. Let’s hope that at least one of these men decides to take the plunge, in order to save the nation from the Left. And from itself.
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
This begs the question: What is the real chance that Christie would run? Dave: you don’t think Pawlenty would be as good as the other three?
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I suspect Pawlenty would be just fine in substance, yes. But I have a hard time seeing Pawlenty convincing Americans that he is of the Christie/Walker ilk. He has tonal problems similar to Daniels, but without Daniels’ big ticket accomplishments on things like HIP in Indiana. Timing has a lot to do with it. Someone who’s a governor now can wade into these issues in a way that non-officeholders can’t.
February 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Pawlenty did a VERY nice job as an eight year governor and arguably even a better job than Daniels.
And let’s give the new guys, Walker and Christie some more seasoning. Can they accomplish their goals? Can they then get reelected?
Time will tell.
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:01 pm
A major part of the problem is not simply the stagnation of middle class wages – but the serious decline of high-compensaiton, low-skill work.
America has to get back to manufacturing, back to industry, back to the very kinds of jobs we have allowed to slip away to the third world, at the expense of a high number of American workers.
Libertarians cannot criticize the higher education bubble, the reliance on government entitlements, and the considerable unemployment pay in this country unless they can put forward a credible way for Americans to make a living.
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Matthew K, do you realize that in comment after comment you have a mindset of trying to socially engineer private businesses? Are you in the right party?
February 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
A leader is either going to lift us up or take us down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NfZDGxHBXs
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:08 pm
America has lost its manufacturing sector forever. It is never coming back, ever. There is nothing we can do to make it come back. The world changes… History moves forward…
It’s seriously like wanting to pass laws to encourage cassette tapes to come back in an iPod world. It’s that foolish a wish.
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“Matthew K, do you realize that in comment after comment you have a mindset of trying to socially engineer private businesses? Are you in the right party?”
Private business? No.
International Economic Policy? YES.
Because, for far too long, our nation has sat unresponsive to a variety of behaviors by our economic partners that have disadvantaged American workers, driven down wages, and created a massive trade deficit.
As for being in the right party – I am througholy non-ideological on economic policy, because theory only goes so far. There are many benefits to trade, and a good many areas where business, playing by general rules and guidelines, will always serve the best interests of the people and the nation.
At the same time, we do not live in a perfect world – and we need to react and govern accordingly.
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Kavon -
Then I ask again, how do you expect the American population to provide for itself?
This is not a matter of ideology, its a matter of reality. Not everyone is fit for a high-skill position…not everyone should go to college. Yet, by writing off all the respectable jobs that don’t involve either high-skill or a college education, you leave a very large number of Americans with very little outlet to support themselves except the government.
February 22nd, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Christie is the only one who can satisfy both substantively and rhetorically.
February 22nd, 2011 at 11:31 pm
And then there’s Gov. Daniels, who has run the Christie/Walker gauntlet, but in a quiet way, a manner that leaves many on the Right unconvinced and wanting more.
Did it ever occur to anyone that sometimes the quiet way is the best way? Sometimes in politics as in business more is accomplished by operating quietly than in constantly trying to attract attention to oneself. It may really come down to what is most important: actually accomplishing positive conservative reform or just making a lot of noise. Too many place more importance on the noise than on actual accomplishment. Most effective political executives would prefer quiet accomplishment. Some, like Christie and Walker, do not have the luxury of choice. The fact that Daniels’ record of conservative reform in Indiana went essentially unnoticed until recently says more about the culture of “Conservative” Movement politics today and the the character of contemporary Conservative leaders and opinion-makers than anything else.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:11 am
I certainly don’t have a crystal ball to see what is going to happen, but I do know that no one is going to come out of this looking like a hero…
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 am
Wisconsin is leading the way toward defunding the Left. Take away mandatory union dues to public employee unions and give these employees the right to keep their money, and, ultimately, you do away with “labor” unions in the public sector of the economy. And, in doing so, you deprive the Left of a large share of their organizational and financial muscle come election season.
The second front is Indiana. Everyone knows that companies, employment, and population have been fleeing from closed shop states to Right to Work states for more than 50 years, but the number of Right to Work states hasn’t grown significantly in decades.
It’s time to change that. States that want to ensure a brighter economic future will be compelled to become more business friendly…..and that means doing away with Closed Shops.
Increasing the number of Right to Work states will deprive Big Labor of much of its influence, and much of its ability to corrupt the politics of the nation. It will also foster a more dynamic and prosperous economy.
Failure to see this on the part of Mitch Daniels constitutes failure to act in the best interests of the citizens of his state. I’m beginning to think he doesn’t have the Right Stuff.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:11 am
There was a time, not that long ago when people would work for the Government, giving up big pay checks for job security….Now, salaries in the private sector barely keeps up with inflation, and offers few benefits.
It’s like the people who work in the private sector are becoming the working poor now when they used to be the middle class…… Now, I know that the people who pick up the trash each week are important… But, with their new Union contract, they now make more than $80,000 to $100,000 a year including all Federal holidays off, a huge benefit package probably worth another $35 to $40 thousand a year, and plenty of job security….I don’t think that’s right.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:01 am
Craig…??? Have you heard? Huck IS running. He said it himself in so many words.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:29 am
Kavon
#7 Sounds almost Marxist in the sense of inevitable-march-of-history sort of fatalism.
You don’t think that man can plot his own course? Are we just bobbing along helplessly on the currents of history?
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:30 am
…or do we just sell globalization and free trade as “inevitable and irreversible” because it benefits certain types of people?
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:57 am
I have to point out that advocating the return of manufacturing to the United States is NOT, as you assert, the same as requiring people to use cassettes again.
I’m not saying we need to return to horse and buggy or typewriter – I’m saying there is no reason we should be making the things that people are using – cars, computers – on our own soil.
When the end result is not specialization to high-tech industries, but unemployment, what do we gain from the outsourcing of manufacturing positions?
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:09 am
9, 11 Chris L, Matthew K, excellent points gentleman.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:12 am
Products already cost too much in the US market…if you have to add US worker’s wages plus a benefits package to the bill, then we will be paying $5000 for a new computer. But you’re right…the work will come back to the US when US factories are completely automated.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:20 am
15.RUBIOZONE Says:
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:01 am
“Craig…??? Have you heard? Huck IS running. He said it himself in so many words.”
Yeah, on Fox News last night, he said pay no attention to those who say I’m not running.
GOP12 Tweets..
Mike Huckabee: “I would be in a very good position” to beat Obama http://bit.ly/eVIbsR with video
9 minutes ago via web
MT @DailyCaller Mark Levin to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: ‘You’re not presidential’ – http://j.mp/hF6QFa [VIDEO]
about 1 hour ago via web
==
Why does Levin dislike all our candidates so much including Huck?
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
We need to innovate, create new products, and yes, make them here if any way possible.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
#20 -
And you end up in EXACTLY the same position…you eliminate any ability for somone to support themselves, and they WILL turn to the government.
The economic libertarians are trying to have things both ways – getting cheap good from China and Mexico, depriving Americans of any ability to make a living outside of spending six years and $100,000 in college, yet not having to support the unemployed or those who could no longer obtain a pension or healthcare from their work.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:51 am
23. Exactly, when only 10 percent (or less) of the population has the ‘skill set’ to compete for a livable wage in the global economy what are you going to do with the 280,000,000 Americans without said skills?
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 am
23 – The standard of living and cost of living in America has raised so much over the past 30 years. With the advancement of consumer based technologies and our own inherent desire to own the next best thing via consumerism, the market has left little options for a manufacturing base in America. With wages being as high as they are now…either our cost of living/standard of living will need to go down or the cost of products will go up!
I know you want a strong manufacturing base in America for the less skilled of workers but just because you want it doesn’t mean it’s viable. One of the best things Bush said was when he directed us to get more education in the tech fields because the manufacturing jobs aren’t here.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
24 – hopefully the other 280,000,000 people, which is an unjust number when you subtract the children and the elderly/retired, but I digress, hopefully they are smart enough to get more education in other fields.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am
22 – that’s what Americans have always done, but we’re not going to be able to manufacture it here and make the innovation cost effective and affordable to the consumer.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 am
It would be perfectly viable if we didn’t allow unchecked imports from Mexico. What has made consumer wages for industrial workers “unviable” is the competition they face from the third world, not the inability of your average consumer to pay for it.
How much sense does it make to lay off 1,000 autoworkers who could have afforded to buy a car, only to hire 1,000 Mexicans who can’t? You end up with twice the number of people who can’t afford consumer goods…and you create a system where those producing for the economy are curiously locked out of it.
—–
“hopefully they are smart enough to get more education in other fields.”
Thats the problem – many are not “smart enough”…sure, they know that a college degree brings higher wages – so they go to college…and 55% end up not finishing and in a worse position than they were before they entered, with significant debt and still no viable prospects for a respectable living.
—–
If you want to make some small moves to improve the labor market, here’s an idea: stop companies from requiring a college degree to be the shift supervisor at 7/11. Thats how absurd things have gotten in this country – you need four years of college to watch people jockey the cash register and stock the shelves.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:29 am
My point from yesterday for all you pro-union guys.
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/labor_unions_socialisms_shock_troops/
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:33 am
Why do you think there is competition from the 3rd world? The price of labor. Americans need to make the wage we are making because our standard/cost of living is so high. If products were manufactured in America…the cost of the product would be more expensive…unless our standard/cost of living went down which would make our rate of pay go down as well.
If 1000 American auto-workers manufactured the car…they couldn’t afford to buy it.
Now one could argue that a pair of Nike sneakers does not have to cost $100 and that the corporation is inflating their prices not based on actual cost to produce the product as much is it is based on how much the consumer will pay for it. Now maybe that is also Americans fault…maybe we should refuse to purchase these products at the exorbitant prices they charge for them. But at the current rate…if an American manufactured that pair of Nike sneakers…they would cost, at least, 3-5 times more.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
26 ‘hopefully’ is right. Why don’t you and Metro go try out for the Yankees or Giants? Same reason I don’t, because you don’t have the natural talent those athletes were born with. We’re talking about the same thing with the ‘skill set’ demanded by the global market but on a massive scale. It doesn’t matter how hard 90 percent of us work at calculus, you either have the natural ability to do it, or you don’t, and 9 out of 10 don’t. China has 200,000,000 people with the talent to compete, see the issue?
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:35 am
Now you’re creating regulations for 7/11. If they, as a company, feel that their shift supervisors should have a college degree…then who has the right to tell them otherwise…the government?
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:39 am
So, we go from one extremist to another? Whither have the non-ideologues gone? Christie anyone?
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 am
31 – there is no issue!!! The facts are the facts. Now I am no expert in economics but I do understand enough to know that we pay a certain price for a product. In China that product is made by people who are making less than a dollar an hour. In the northeast of America…to make the same product…it would cost at least 10-15 dollars an hour, which isn’t a great wage to begin with to support a family. Right now an HDTV costs $500 with the Chinese workers. With American workers it would cost anywhere between 3-10 times that amount.
Do you know any average American that could afford to pay $1500-$5000 for a TV?
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am
34 correction…now I am no expert in economics but I do understand enough to know that we pay a certain price for a product based on how much the product costs to manufacture…plus marketing and advertising costs…plus profit.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
So, jersey, what is your alternative?
The libertarian position – advocated by yourself, Metro, Dave, etc. – seems to be broken down into four key elements:
- We should not make any sustained effort to preserve low-skill, high-wage positions in the United States.
- We should not make any effort to prevent requiring advanced education where it clearly is not needed.
- We should not be providing significant student aid (witness the crusade against the Pell Grants – of which I have been a recipiant)
- We should not provide welfare to the unemployed or those who worked, but did not recieve the kind of compensaiton required to support themselves after they stopped working.
You cannot have all of those things – you can have, AT MOST, three of them…and that last point, about not providing welfare, is not among them.
Either you have to ensure that people have a way to support themselves, support them through government programs, or face civil unrest – look at Europe or Egypt.
——
As for not making things in the United States – forget, for a moment, that we still make a good number of cars in this country, and that we could meet our needs for a signfiicant manufacturing base with that kind of production;large consumer or industrial goods – New Balance makes their shoes in the United States, and their products are not, on average, substantially more expensive than Nike’s product. Good quality too.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I’m not looking to start trouble or rebel against Conservative principles…but there are certain economic realities that the political sphere has to confront (if only explaining how it does not need to do more)…the most pressing reality in this country at this time on the economic front is the long-term lack of employment opportunities for anyone without a college degree, and that, even as a degree has become more essential, it has become less valuable.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:15 pm
To redirect to the thread topic…..I’m very impressed with Scott Walker, and, for that matter, the entire Republican Party in Wisconsin. If he rides out the storm and continues thereafter to move the state towards solvency and greater competitiveness, he will have a brilliant political future.
It’s nice to know that it isn’t just Chris Christie possessing The Right Stuff at this pivotal moment in the nation’s history.
This time around, though, it’s Romney’s or Pawlenty’s moment. These guys have already done it on the state level.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
34 yes, there is an issue, we’re talking about different aspects of the same problem. Read ‘Real education’ by Charles Murray, if you’re lucky or blessed (depends on whether you believe in God) enough to have the talent to compete you either care, or you don’t about this problem, and as Matthew wrote above, not caring puts us on the road to anarchy.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Matthew Kilburn,
The ONLY way to help people without advanced skill sets to thrive economically is to grow the economy…..a LOT. That, in turn, can only be done by removing the major impediments to growth, and one of the most egregious of these is the legal power of labor unions, which collectively add significantly to the costs of many products made in America.
Reforming the tax code, the TORT process, the regulatory environment, along with the massive curbing of Union Power……These are the things that have to be done for the good of low-income Americans.
In the meantime, I would favor reviving Milton Friedman’s idea of the negative income tax, and eliminating ALL other social welfare programs and subsidies. That process would be a simple matter of transfer payments, with very little bureaucracy involved in the process.
And, America is still prosperous enough for that to keep people on their feet while waiting for something better as the economy grows. Nobody would be below a realistic poverty level.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“The ONLY way to help people without advanced skill sets to thrive economically is to grow the economy…..a LOT.”
…that only makes sense if the growth is in areas applicable to those workers without an advanced skill set. We could tripple the number of advanced high-tech research positions in this country, and create incredible demand for consumer goods…but as long as companies still have the opportunity to move production to countries with dirt-poor wages and little domestic consumption, you will do nothing for the Americans who currently find themselves shut out.
Economic growth is the answer to outsourcing – but, actually, it is the economic growth of those making the goods, so that they will start consuming what they make, and have less to export, requiring a return of domestic production in advanced naitons.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Matthew,
Consider that a rapidly growing economy means a lot of people moving from modest homes to larger, more expensive ones. It means a lot of people selling 3- and 4-year-old cars and buying new ones. This means that these things become a lot less expensive for those lower down in the food chain.
It also means that the service sector expands, creating a lot of jobs for those who aren’t tech-savvy. People moving up will eat out more often, hire maids, landscapers, etc. More office buildings mean more maintenance hires. The list is endless.
Also, you seem to have missed my point about the negative income tax. I’m all for the safety net, as long as it doesn’t make it too comfortable for people to do nothing.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
41 what Matthew is describing here is the most ‘conservative’ free market solution to the very real problem of what we do with the 90 percent+ of us that will never be able to compete in the global economy. Yes, it’s a different form of corporate welfare, but the alternatives are more ‘public sector’ jobs or anarchy. Pick your poison.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Dave, several points.
First, this:
‘Consider that a rapidly growing economy means a lot of people moving from modest homes to larger, more expensive ones. It means a lot of people selling 3- and 4-year-old cars and buying new ones. This means that these things become a lot less expensive for those lower down in the food chain.’
Which they cannot buy or afford. This seems to take the false idea of ‘trickle-down’ – which we KNOW does not work. To wit – nothing in this part gives the low income worker more money. Then:
‘It also means that the service sector expands, creating a lot of jobs for those who aren’t tech-savvy. People moving up will eat out more often, hire maids, landscapers, etc. More office buildings mean more maintenance hires. The list is endless.’
And all at below-subsistence levels of pay. Meaning, effectively, they cannot move up the ladder, and in reality will slide to dependence as those low paying jobs continue to stagnate as they have in the last 20-30 years.
And finally:
‘I’m all for the safety net, as long as it doesn’t make it too comfortable for people to do nothing.’
Do you even KNOW how little unemployment insurance pays? Too comfortable? How about choosing heat or food? Do you even know how hard unemployed people WANT to work – it’s a basic human need to feel useful. I just don’t think you know anything about being poor or out of work for a long period of time. And because of that, you can’t form a reality-based opinion on this issue.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The fact is this…if you want to be able to purchase affordable products…then they will have to be manufactured overseas where the labor is cheaper…END OF STORY!!!
You talk as if manufacturing is the only viable job for a “low skilled” worker in this country. There are plenty of occupations for lower skilled workers(those who lack secondary degrees) I actually don’t like to refer to tradesman or manufacture workers as low skilled because there are plenty of trades that not even a college educated person could do without the right skill set.
The economy doesn’t die if the manufacturing base dies. I agree that it would be great if the manufacturing jobs could stay in the U.S. but the math doesn’t add up. You keep talking about why it should theoretically stay but you ignore the fact that the prices of those products will rise so much making them unaffordable to the masses.
I’m just not sure what answer you’re looking for…unless you just want me to agree with you…
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Also MK, you keep talking about libertarian economics…which in my ignorance…I am unfamiliar with…my only guess is economic theories that libertarians are in favor of? If that is what you are referring to then I would guess that a lot of libertarians would agree with you since they believe in a more exclusive America…even economic isolationism.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
43 – mac…GET MORE TRAINING…EDUCATE YOURSELF…it’s not like you woke up one morning and noticed there aren’t any manufacturing jobs left. Seriously! If you want to stand on a line and work a drill press all day long, then chances are you are s*#t outta luck…if you want to better your life and have a future in the workforce then you must go get trained for jobs in the 21st century market place.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Jersey,
Not that I’m an elite, far from it, and there’s a pretty good chance you’re smarter than me, but I have a B.A. and an M.A.. More education is always a good idea, but my point is to truly compete in the 21st century you need to be an elite, you need to be very hard working and an IQ >120. Again, pick up a copy of Real Education by Charles Murray, then read the Bell Curve, then check out The World is Flat by Friedman, then do the math, then lets talk.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:01 am
48 – mac, in all honesty…my last statement was not directed at you specifically but in general. I really don’t claim to be smarter than anyone else. I, personally, think that consumerism and corporatism has brought us to this place and it is to our detriment as a society. I also think that we have become too technologically advanced too quickly, so much that the market hasn’t truly caught up to the advancement. But then again…what do I know. But we are where we are and unless average Americans stop worrying about keeping up with the Jones’ there is no turning back. From what I have read…there is such a backlog of advancement…in consumer based technology…that it is not cost effective to put out the next best thing until they reap the benefits from today’s best thing.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:50 am
“I, personally, think that consumerism and corporatism has brought us to this place and it is to our detriment as a society.”
We certainly agree on that point. I’ve been with Matthew K. on this thread, but we part ways on the Fair Tax, which I think would help ebb excessive consumerism and keep what manufacturing base we have left and perhaps spur some growth in manufacturing.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:40 am
I’m more for the flat tax but I do see how the innate desire to not give the government any of our hard earned dollars could curb excessive consumerism…which unfortunately would lead to greater unemployment. I. personally, just don’t see a point in, basically, abolishing the IRS or completely gutting it to make way for an entire new bureaucratic organization, when we can utilize the existing structure and simplify the tax code to a flat tax for everybody.
But I guess that’s a discussion for a different thread.
I forget…but I assume you’re a Huckabee supporter? Is Kilburn one as well…if he’s not for the fair tax then I must assume he is not?
February 24th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Yeah, I’m a long time Huckabee guy, Kilburn is a Romney guy.