Thursday, July 9, 2015

Sounds Like a Commie to Me

Stephen Moore the Heritage Foundation economist, who debated Paul Krugman at the "libertarian" FreedomFest show, wrote this two weeks ago:
We want everyone in America to be a worker-owner. This is how to create a shared prosperity.
What the hell do free markets have to do with  everyone becoming a "worker-owner"? What's wrong with some people just being workers and other being just capitalists, in addition to some who  might be workers and owners? And in a stable free market society, why shouldn't some people keep their savings in bank accounts while others own stocks?

Further, the idea of a "shared prosperity" suggests some kind of "prosperity pie" that needs to be divided up. In fact, if someone wants prosperity, that person should get off his butt and create some.

Moore wrote his comment in the context of an article on the "problem of inequity." I have pointed out "inequality" is a non-problem (See:This Is What Those Who Are Concerned About Inequality Fail to Grasp)



  1. That is a really odd phrase, but he did actually identify one of the major culprits:

    Millennials are (roughly) the first generation to lose pretty much their entire potential savings to FICA taxes, starting at day 1.

    While the savings rate was over 10% for decades, FICA taxes were in the single digits:

    Current SS + Medicare taxes are 16%, plus whatever flat income taxes the particular state adds on, which averages something like 22% all together! Considering that the savings rate peaked at 15%, well, good luck starting out from zero.

    The "silver lining" is that we've probably hit "peak payroll tax." When it was temporarily cut, the savings rate went up, and then dropped again when it expired, making the relationship blatantly obvious.

    About 80% of people opposed reinstating it. Of course, congress did it, anyways, because democracy.

    What's interesting/sad/damning is that this started as a Keynesian scheme to increase the velocity of money. Take from young savers, and give to old spenders. Yet with record numbers of people on social security, and near record low savings, look how that turned out:

    After a century of failure for every conceivable "ism" experiment, it would seem that the only thing predictable about using force against people is that the opposite of the intended behavior will be the end result. Sadly, we're also nearing the century mark since this was first pointed out, and most people still don't have a clue:

  2. Too bad for them. This isn't the dark ages. Information is free and abundant. No savings? Too bad.
    Didn't see the writing, not just on the wall but plastered on your face? Why? Cause too many think they can get a freebie from the next bunch of chumps. Guess what. It dries up.
    I am tired of talking about how this generation or the next is screwed.
    No they aren't. Only if they allow it. My kids have more access to information than I could dream of, and I'm only 40.
    The State is the enemy, is evil, should be countered at every turn, but everyone is responsible for his own self.
    Yes. Some are more stupid than others. 10,000 years of history has shown that.

  3. I decided at some point during my work life that I preferred being an employee to being an employer. The people whose business I worked in asked me on several occasions to become a part owner, but I turned them down. I didn't want the responsibility that went along with ownership: I don't like committees, managing people, and paper work, and I was happy with the work and the people I worked with. I was a highly valued employee and that was good enough for me.

  4. Whenever someone uses the "WE" word, I turn off. "WE want everyone in America to be" such and such. Who the hell is "we?" And "shared prosperity?" "WE" are all socialists now I guess.