The American Left loves the Chinese Economic System despite its Inefficiencies, Income Gap and Crimes Against Humanity

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left looks at China with awe and reverence.  They see that huge export economy and they know how they did that.  Massive government control over the economy.  And Keynesian economics on such a grand scale that it would  even impress Paul Krugman.  Nobel-winning Keynesian economist who’s constant refrain is that the government just never spends enough.  Something no one can say about the Chinese Communists.  And that’s why the American Left loves China.  For when it comes to the economy they wield dictatorial power.  If the American Left had those powers they could accomplish so much.  Beginning with the arrest of the Republican opposition and deportation to reeducation camps.  Then they could make our economy hum.  Just like in China.  Where brilliant government bureaucrats educated in the finest Ivy League universities called all the shots.  For only those who despise free market capitalism would know how to truly optimize economic output (see Game Over for China’s Photovoltaic Manufacturers by Gao Zitan & Frank Fang posted 1/6/2013 on TheEpochTimes).

It was in October of 2011 when the U.S. and European PV companies decided that enough is enough. Over the last years they had to compete against Chinese companies selling their products below cost. As a result many European and U.S. companies had to close down. The remaining ones chose to appeal to regulators to stop the unfair practices.

Note once again who is complaining about companies selling things too cheaply.  It is not the consumer.  For the consumer never complains that they aren’t being charged enough.  It is always another business requesting antitrust protection against a company they cannot compete against.

The Chinese regime viewed solar photovoltaic production as a promising industry with rapid scalability and production, and high profits. It could add to GDP growth and employment. This is why the regime greatly promoted the growth in the domestic PV market through business-oriented regulations and incentives. Banks, local governments and other financial agencies were ordered to heavily subsidize the solar industry with cheap loans.

Starting in 2009, the regime sponsored some large-scale national PV projects. The Solar PV building program comprised 111 projects and the Golden Sun program included 275 projects. Provincial or municipal funded programs provided the framework for many other PV related projects.

This is exactly what the Left wants to do.  What the Obama administration did.  They want smart government bureaucrats to tweak market forces to make things better.  At least this is what these government people think.  Because they are so smart.  Even though they have no business experience.  So the American Left wants to do exactly what China did.  What the Americans did but on a much grander scale.  Because their communist government had the power to do it on a grander scale.  Something the American Left laments that the American government doesn’t have that kind of power.  Yet the Americans want to penalize the Chinese for unfair practices.  Despite constantly championing the Chinese way.

In 2008, there were less than 100 PV enterprises. But by the end of 2011 there were more than 500 PV companies, a five-fold increase, according to Guangzhou-based business newspaper 21st Century Business Herald…

On the surface, Chinese companies were doing well. Revenue of the PV industry was more than 300 billion yuan ($48 billion) and Chinese companies occupied five spots in the top 10 of global solar cell manufacturers, according to the report. However, the fast expansion of PV production capacity did not match domestic demand.

According to statistics of EU ProSun, in 2011, China reached a total PV production capacity of 45 GW but domestic consumption was only 2 GW. The production capacity spurred by massive subsidies and state incentives was over 20 times higher than actual demand for solar powered electricity. The only way out was exporting the surplus production…

As a result of lower subsidies in Europe and tariffs in the United States, the overproduction stimulated by state subsidies can no longer be exported. One indication is a rapid growth in inventories. Sixty-six listed Chinese PV companies of the Shanghai A-Share Stock Market showed a 20 percent increase in inventories compared with the same period of the previous year…

President of EU ProSun Milan Nitzschke said, “Chinese subsidies shield manufacturers from insolvency, and are pumped into solar companies even if they are unprofitable. Most Chinese solar companies would have gone bankrupt a long time ago if not for endless government subsidies.”

This is what happens when you have ‘smart’ government people take over the free market economy.  You build a lot of stuff no one will buy.  Just like the Soviets built a lot of tractor parts that sat on store shelves unsold while people stood in line to buy soap and toilet paper.  This is why the command economies of communism failed.  And while the command economy of the Chinese Communists will fail, too.  What Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian school of economics called malinvestments.  Which directs resources from making things people want to making things people don’t want.  Creating shortages of the things people want (like soap and toilet paper in the Soviet Union).  And overflows inventories with things people don’t want (like solar panels in China).  All because a government bureaucrat decided to make more tractor parts and solar panels instead of soap and toilet paper.

And if that wasn’t bad enough there are other costs for the Chinese way (see Never Mind the Fiscal Cliff, China is Headed For a ‘Real’ Cliff by Michelle Yu posted 1/6/2013 on TheEpochTimes).

China is dangerously close to a catastrophic political, economic, and social meltdown, according to a Chinese business scholar, who cites China’s growing income gap as one of its serious crisis indicators…

Rural versus urban inequality has long been recognized as a key factor in China’s income gap. Not only does the rural income level fall far below the urban level, but the income inequality is also more obvious within rural regions…

Another notable factor is high unemployment rate. The SUFE study suggests that China’s national unemployment rate was 8 percent in July 2011, suggesting an unemployed population of 27.7 million, which is almost twice as high as what authorities have admitted to. The unemployment rate doubles for 51-55-year-olds, reaching 16.4 percent, and is attributed to mergers and standardized bankruptcy of state-owned enterprises in the early 2000’s. (An explanation of mergers and standardized bankruptcy are available here  and here.)

Surprisingly, the unemployment rate for 21-25-year-olds who hold college or above degrees is also 16.4 percent—the same as for the 51-55-year age group. By contrast, the rate for 21-25-year-old poorly educated migrant laborers from rural areas is only 3.4 percent. A shortage of cheap labor has affected some of China’s key export industries such as apparel and electronics, especially on the east coast.

But the root cause of the income inequality and a battery of other economic problems in China can be found in the communist regime’s overexploitation of social wealth, according to Winifred Tung, an attorney and commentator from Taiwan.

The exploitation has been realized largely through preferential policies in favor of state-owned enterprises and suppression of the private sector, Tung told NTD Television, citing recent data, which says that the GDP of large-scale state-owned enterprises (SOEs) accounts for 60 percent of China’s overall GDP. However, among the different culprits of tax evasion in China, SOEs came in first place with 26-28 percent.

So this is why they can make so many solar panels (and other export goods) so cheaply.  By exploiting poor rural laborers in their big city factories.  Resulting in something the American Left say wouldn’t exist if they had control over the economy like the Chinese do.  An income gap.  Income inequality.  Something that is apparently worse in the country where the government has the power to make life fair.  But it’s more than just an income gap.

The Chinese factory workers aren’t like UAW workers.  They have low pay, no benefits and often live in dormitories in the factory compound.  And these have it good (see The Difficulty of Smuggling a Slip of Paper From a Chinese Labor Camp by Guo Jufeng posted 1/6/2013 on TheEpochTimes).

Like the person whose plea made headlines around the world, I was also in Liaoning Province, China. Twelve years ago, I was imprisoned in Huludao City Forced Labor Camp, Liaoning, for 2.5 years for practicing the meditation discipline of Falun Gong. My companion Cao Yuqiang, who was eventually tortured to death, and I were watched 24 hours a day by two criminals, so that we could not exchange information regarding the persecution of Falun Gong.

One day, I came up with the bold idea to find a way to communicate information about the persecution to the outside world.

The first obstacle we faced was that we didn’t have pen or paper. So, as more and more information was passed on to me, it became quite a challenge to memorize everything! To improve my memory, I repeated the information to myself every day, since I couldn’t communicate regularly with Cao Yuqiang.

One day, out of the blue, Cao told me he had found a refill for a ball-point pen. I suspected he must have gone through a great deal of trouble to procure it, but I did not have the opportunity to ask him for any details at that time.

Now I had a pen, but there was still the question of what to write on. I finally realized that the only possibility was toilet paper, and to avoid being caught, I would have to write the message after midnight.

I had to keep strengthening my mind to overcome fear and anxiety as any negative thoughts could lead me to give up. Questions and doubts plagued my mind: “Would this work? How could we get the information out? Would I be able to withstand the torture if it was discovered? Had other prisoners found out about my plan? Were they waiting to catch me in the act?” I was certain that if my plan were discovered, I would be tortured mercilessly with electric batons.

This is part of that Chinese economic system the American Left so admires.  An economy that is based on cheap labor.  In some cases even slave labor.  And it’s no secret.  Which is odd for the American Left who are champions of the labor movement.  Who bankrupted countless businesses (GM, Chrysler, Hostess, etc.) by demanding ever higher pay and benefits packages.  Yet here they are.  Admiring an economic system that just exploits labor in the worst ways.  Even using torture.  And it bothers some.  Maybe not the American Left.  But the Chinese themsleves (see A Young Chinese Man’s New Year Wish for His Father by Gao Zitan posted 1/1/2013 on TheEpochTimes).

As 2013 begins with an atmosphere of joy welcoming in the new year, a young man from Hubei, China, is worried about his father who is a member of the Communist Party.

The term “San Tui” in Chinese refers to the three distinct renouncements. It means to quit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its two affiliated organizations: the Communist Youth League, and the Young Pioneers, which people are made to join in their youth.

In recent years, “the three renouncements ensure safety” has become a well-known saying in China, and many consider it a rational choice for mainland Chinese to guarantee themselves immunity from all the crimes perpetrated by the Communist Party when the day of reckoning comes. So family members of those who refuse to consider the wisdom of this option are very worried for their loved ones…

“The three renouncements ensure safety” has been widely recognized by the Chinese public since 2004, when The Epoch Times published the truth about the CCP in “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” in 2004, and began registering those wishing to make the three withdrawals.

As of Dec. 30, 2012, more than 130 million people had registered with The Epoch Times to quit the CCP and its affiliated organizations.

The American Left may be enthralled with the Chinese communist way just as they were enthralled with the Soviet communist way but those living under those oppressive regimes weren’t.  And aren’t.  China is not the China it was under Mao.  But the hard-line communists are.  But even some of these committed their crimes against humanity for a higher purpose.  To prevent the anarchy that followed in parts of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet Union collapsed.  So some may commit their crimes for good.  While a lot no doubt just enjoy the privilege that comes with being in the party leadership.  And the very comfortable lifestyle.  Much like liberals in this country.  But not the average Chinese.  At least 130 million of them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT149: “Poor people don’t hate rich people; they envy them and buy lotto tickets to become one of them.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 21st, 2012

Fundamental Truth

People don’t hate the Lifestyles of the Rich they just hate the Rich because they’re Living it Instead of Them

Overweight and less beautiful women hate beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  Overweight and less handsome men hate more handsome and muscular men who get all the beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  They may hate those who are more physically attractive than they are.  Until they start dieting and going to the gym to become one of them.  Once they are one of the beautiful people they no longer hate the people they once did.  In fact, they now enjoy being part of their world.  A world where their physical appearance gets them the attention they didn’t know when they were less attractive.  But for some dieting and working out is hard work.  Especially if they have to work harder than others who can eat and drink anything they want without putting on a pound.  So if they falter from their new healthy lifestyle and put that weight back on those old feelings of hatred will return.

People fear cancer.  They hate cancer.  And may adopt a healthier life style to avoid cancer.  By eating healthier.  And exercising.  They may quit smoking and cut buck on drinking.  And they may add certain foods to their diet they understand will help prevent cancer.  Even if some of these foods aren’t delicious.  After adopting a healthier lifestyle they don’t change their position on cancer.  They still hate it.  But staying on a healthy diet and making time to exercise is hard.  Because the delicious, less healthy foods are hard to give up.  And going to the movies is a lot more enjoyable than going to the gym.  Once their healthier lifestyle lapses their position on cancer does not change.  They still hate it.  As they always hated it.

There is a difference between hate and envy.  You may hate people you envy.  Because they are, or have, everything you want.  And you covet what they have.  But what you hate is that they are living the good life instead of you.  They don’t hate the good life.  Whereas you don’t envy what you truly hate.  No one has ever complained that someone else got cancer instead of them.  No one has ever complained about the unfairness of cancer that way.  Usually the complaint is more along the lines of ‘why me and not someone else’.  For the hate of cancer is a pure hate.  It is not relative.  It is absolute.  Whereas someone’s hate of the rich is relative.  It will disappear the moment a person comes into money.

People in the Public Sector exploit the Taxpayers to pay for their very Generous Pay and Benefit Packages

Kids may go on to college and take courses in the social sciences.  Where they learn about the unfairness of capitalism.  The evil of corporations.  How businesses exploit their employees.  How they put profits before people.  By the time they leave college the word ‘profit’ is a four-letter word to them.  And they believe we should shun anyone pursuing profits like those exploitive business owners.  Raising taxes on them is a good thing.  For by doing so we can help redistribute the wealth from those hoarding it to those who don’t have enough.  To produce a fair and egalitarian society.

They also learned how socialism is better.  That the Soviet Union only failed because of the Americans undermining a superior economic system.  They believe so strongly that they vote Democrat to try and do something about making America a fairer place to live.  They go on to get jobs in the public sector to do their part in making America fairer.  By redistributing wealth.  To help those who have little.  And they exploit the taxpayers.  Forcing them to pay for their very generous pay and benefit packages.  While those same taxpayers never live a life as fair or as equal as the public sector workers they support.

These public sector workers envy the life of the rich.  They don’t hate that life.  They just hate the people who are smarter and more talented than they are who were able to achieve that life.  It’s not fair that these people had talent.  And worked hard for success.  So it’s only fair to take their money away from them to make society fair.  And so they can enjoy a lifestyle that neither their talent nor their ability could ever provide.

Poor People voted overwhelmingly for President Obama to Punish the Rich for Winning Life’s Lottery

President Obama won reelection with a campaign of class war.  Getting the people to believe that the rich weren’t paying their fair share in federal income taxes.  Despite the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of all federal income taxes.  Early on Occupy Wall Street agitated the people against the 1%.  Which grew into a bitter character assassination of Mitt Romney.  Because he was rich.  People hated him for that.  Not for having money per se.  For the people wanted everything he had.  They just hated him because he had the talent to earn what they couldn’t.  For they lacked the talent to achieve the success of Mitt Romney.

President Obama enjoyed the support of rich Hollywood stars and musicians.  And the president enjoyed hobnobbing with them.  Even the suffering masses enjoyed seeing the president hobnob with their idols.  Even though they had wealth just like Mitt Romney.  But for some reason their inequality was okay.  And these superstars, incidentally, all went into their chosen field to become rich.  To live in mansions.  And to have more money than they could ever spend.  While the people castigated Mitt Romney for having money the people looked on in awe and reverence at the lifestyle of the rich and famous they so admired.  And all the rich and famous had to do to get this pass on having obscene wealth is to attack other people with wealth.  And publically support Democrats.  You do that and they will leave you alone.  No matter how much money you shelter in the Cayman Islands.

No one hates rich people.  They just envy their lifestyles.  And covet what they have.  They hate the fact that they weren’t born with the passion, drive, ability or talent to become rich.  And hate these people for being able to do what they cannot.  Become rich.  Though it doesn’t stop them from trying.  Especially poor people.  Who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.  To punish the rich for winning life’s lottery.  While they themselves spend every last dollar they can buying lotto tickets.  For they may have voted for President Obama to punish the rich.   But that’s only because they envy the rich.  And want to become one of them.  Should they win the lotto their position on hating the rich will quickly change.  Perhaps going so far as to start voting Republican.  To save as much of their winnings from the taxman as possible.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China has Severe Inequality and the Worst Public Toilets in all of Asia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2012

Week in Review

The Left believes the government can make capitalism better.  And fairer.  In the Eighties they liked to point to Japan.  And the incredible economic growth they had thanks to government partnering with business.  Before their deflationary spiral and their Lost Decade.  Thanks to all that government partnering with business.  But that was yesterday’s news.  Today they like to point at the economic juggernaut that is China.  And say, “See?  That’s what strong government can do.”  For they believe China can get things done because they don’t have to deal with that pesky democracy.  All of those elections.   And being answerable to the people.  In China the government rules.  And the people quake in their boots.  Which lets China get things done.  And make a better society for all Chinese (see The forbidden public toilets of Beijing by Justin Rowlatt posted 9/8/2012 on BBC News Magazine).

Jeff Sun is the scion of one of China’s new rich and the founder of the “China Super Car Club”. He has got so many he cannot even remember them all…

We met Jeff while reporting on the yawning chasms of inequality that have opened up in Chinese society.

We filmed in some of the poorest communities I have ever visited – Chinese villages where no-one has ever owned a car and where they still till their fields using a single donkey, shared between dozens of farmers.

A better society for all Chinese?  Granted there are those on the Left who would love to see a world where no one owned a car.  But one donkey shared between dozens of farmers?  That doesn’t sound like a fairer society.  Not when there are rich people elsewhere who have so many cars that they can’t remember them all.  So apparently this state-capitalism (or as they say in China, communism) isn’t as egalitarian as the Left would like to believe.  For in America there is more capitalism than communism.  And yet American farmers don’t share donkeys.  No.  In America farmers own their own tractors.  Which seems to be a bit more egalitarian than communist China.  But it gets worse.

The journalists’ rule of thumb is that you cannot report the so-called three Ts – Tiananmen, Taiwan or Tibet.

We inadvertently discovered a fourth T.

In an article in the country’s English language newspaper, China Daily, I came across an editorial featuring stinging criticism of China from the WTO. Not the World Trade Organisation, this was the less well-known World Toilet Organisation.

This WTO had ranked China as having the worst public toilets in all Asia. The paper explained how, in response, Beijing had introduced rigorous new hygiene standards – now no more than two flies are now allowed in any public toilet.

The paper was in no doubt about the importance of the issue. “Clean public toilets are the symbol of a civilized society,” it thundered. The controversy made me chuckle and I mentioned to our government minder that I wanted to cover this storm in a toilet bowl.

It was Mr Chen’s job to ensure we did not break any reporting rules. He had been a cheerful, relaxed companion throughout our three-week journey, but now his face darkened.

“I do not think that would be a good idea,” he said gravely…

Mr Chen vanished for a few moments. When he returned his manner was forbidding.

“I am sorry Justin but I have to tell you cannot report this story at all.”

The human rights issue of Tiananmen, Taiwan or Tibet may be a sore spot for China as well as the liberals who so admire their way of governing.  But the worst public toilets in all Asia?  That affects everyone.  At least those who have to drop trou in their busy day away from home.  Not to mention the tourists.  The Chinese government may not know a good, quality public toilet but people traveling to their country no doubt do.  Oh the shame.  Oh the humanity.  Oh the inequality.  No wonder the sensors will allow journalists to report about the severe inequality in Chinese society.  For what is a village of farmers having to share one donkey compared to embarrassing public toilets?  For we all know every country judges another by the quality of their public toilets.  For few things are so sacred, so personal, as copping a squat when out on the town.

And this is the governing style the Left would have the US follow.  For it is more egalitarian.  Even though the masses must use the worse public toilets in all of Asia while the new Chinese rich no doubt enjoy a squat on the finest porcelain known to mankind.  And probably follow that up with a refreshing bidet cleansing.  No.  This isn’t equality.  This is a toilet aristocracy.  Which simply doesn’t exist under laissez faire capitalism.  Where going to the toilet in public isn’t a privilege.  It’s just so expected in capitalist societies that it is taken for granted.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mary O’Grady cites the Problems of Latin America as too Much Socialism and not Enough Economic Liberty

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2012

Week in Review

Latin America has the will and the way for prosperity.  If only they give up on oppressive equality (see Destroying Latin America: Journalist Mary O’Grady on Populism, Protectionism, and Prohibition by Zach Weissmueller posted 4/28/2012 on Reason).

“The inequality produced by liberty: This, for the socialist, is the soft underbelly of pro-market rationale and the best place to attack,” says Mary O’Grady, a columnist who covers Latin America for the Wall Street Journal. “I would argue that it’s the intellectual stream that prevails in Latin America, and it’s the reason the region can not hope to reach its potential any time soon.”

O’Grady made a presentation at Reason Weekend 2012, Reason Foundation’s annual donor event. [Sh]e talked about why Latin American countries are so susceptible to socialism and identified the “three P’s” of “Populism, Protectionism, and Prohibition” as the primary sources of the region’s biggest problems.

To briefly summarize the ruling elite in Latin America are anti-capitalistic.  Because capitalism leads to income inequality.  So they discourage any capitalistic activity.  The politicians and rulers.  Intellectuals.  And academia.  Which squashes the entrepreneurial spirit.  Because entrepreneurs could become rich.  And that wouldn’t be fair.  So they nationalized industries.  And forced equality on the masses.  Which has kept the masses mired in poverty.  Yet when these same people leave their forced equality and move into capitalistic countries their lives improve.  They become entrepreneurs.  Further expanding the middle class.  Adding more to the vibrant economies they’ve joined.  All of which they could have in Latin America.  If only they stop oppressing the people in the name of equality.

Good presentation by Mary O’Grady.  Watching this video is 32 minutes well spent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FT114: “One of the most effective ways to get privilege is to force fairness on others.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Voters are so Greedy and Selfish with their Hard-Earned Money that they’re not going to Vote to be Subjugated

History is strewn with people oppressing others to gain privilege for themselves.  Kings, emperors and nobles were always a small minority of civilizations.  But they had the power.  And the wealth.  While the masses suffered abject poverty and went hungry.  Or suffered through famines.    And died.  With early civilizations this was just the way of life.  Because there was no middle class.  No free market capitalism.  And no rule of law.  Life was for the most part subsistence farming.  Where most ate only what they grew.  While the kings, emperors and nobles enjoyed lots of food and drink.  Even enjoyed having a little fun.  Unlike the impoverished masses.  Having privilege made life better.  Which is why the privileged worked hard to keep it.  By forcing others to work hard to provide that better life for them.

But times change.  Privileged ruling classes fall.  And middle classes rise.  Creating vibrant economies.  And representative government.  Then one day the privileged find that they are no longer privileged.  That wealth isn’t automatically theirs.  Instead it belongs to the people who earn that wealth.  And if the once-privileged want wealth then they, too, have to work to get it.  So they, too, can have nice things.  And that they can only have these things if they earned enough to afford them.  Which is a great problem if you don’t want to work.  Don’t have any ability to earn a high income.  Or if you have a feeling of entitlement.  Like in days of yore.  Where you didn’t need anything but a good last name to live the good life.  On the backs of those who didn’t live the good life.

Feelings of entitlement don’t die, though.  They don’t go away once the middle class starts sharing the wealth.  Well, not so much sharing it but earning it.  And keeping it.  Instead of giving it to a privileged ruling class.  Which poses a problem for those who aspire to join a ruling class.  Especially now that we have those pesky elections.  Because voters are so greedy and selfish with their hard-earned money that they’re not going to vote to be subjugated.  They’re not going to vote in a privileged ruling class so they can live like royalty.  While those who pay for that royal lifestyle don’t.  ‘Vote for me so I can live better than you’ is just not a winning political platform.  So that’s why politicians lie.

The Privileged Elite uses Class Warfare to take other People’s Wealth

What do you need to live a privileged life?  Lots of money.  No secret here.  But the secret is how to get that money.  In particular, how do those who don’t want to work or have no talent or have no ability create wealth?  Here’s the secret.  They don’t create wealth.  They take wealth.  By going into government.

Only government has the power to tax.  Which can be a great source of wealth.  Other people’s wealth.  Which is any privileged class’ second favorite kind of wealth.  Second only to the wealth they already took from others.  Because that’s what they want.  Other people’s wealth.  And they’ve found a clever way of taking it.  By making the world a fairer place.  And who’s against fairness?  They’re going to make sure that the poor and children have access to food and affordable housing.  And who’s against the poor?  The children?  You’d have to be a pretty vicious, heartless bastard to be against the children.  And the poor.  They’re going to make sure that women have access to reproductive health care.  For who hates women?  I’ll tell you who.  Anyone that opposes raising taxes.  They hate women.  Children.  The poor.  For the world is full of haters.  And just who are these haters?  Aanyone that earns a lot of money and doesn’t want to pay higher taxes.  These people hate anyone not as wealthy as they are.  Because they hate fairness.  And paying their fair share.  Because they’re greedy.  And hate women and children.  And puppies, too.

This is the way the privileged take other people’s wealth.  Class warfare.  And it’s very effective.  By being the party of the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies, they’re kind and benevolent.  With other people’s money, of course.  But those people are evil so it’s okay.  People hate them.  But they like their kind government benefactors.  Who are looking out for their best interests.  Not rich people.  Or corporate profits.  No, our kind government benefactors make sure those greedy rich people and corporations pay their fair share.  Because that’s all that they want.  It’s all anyone wants.  To be fair.

North Korea is pretty much at the End of the Fairness Road

Later incarnations of the privileged ruling class used the fairness approach to give themselves a better life.  While oppressing their people.  Even killing them.  Through famine.  Or deliberate acts of violence.  All in the name of fairness.  And nothing better epitomizes this than communism.  Where everyone was equal.  Brothers.  Comrades.  There were no profits.  No capitalism.  No competitiveness.  No.  Everyone was equal.  They paid everyone the same.  They dressed everyone the same.  They housed everyone the same.  They fed everyone the same.  Very little.  For one thing you never saw in a communist country was obesity.  Instead you probably heard the rumbling of tummies as most people were hungry all of the time.  There was no income inequality.  No gender inequality.  No.  In communism they had nothing but equality.  Life was fair.  Because no one had anything more than anyone else.  As they perfectly distributed the misery and poverty equally among the impoverished masses.

That was for the masses.  It was quite a different thing for the privileged ruling elite.  Those in the party apparatchik.  And the inner party members themselves.  Who were more equal than others.  These people dressed better.  They had better housing.  Even cars.  They ate better.  Some so well that they grew obese.  North Korea suffers from recurring famines to this day but Kim Jong IL had a bit of a weight problem.  As his son does.  Kim Jong-un.  No, life is very good for the privileged ruling elite.  And hell for those living under them.  Who the ruling elite let die of hunger.  And send to concentration camps if they dare speak of their displeasure.  For only under communism is life fair.  And they just can’t risk the unhappy masses to spoil it for the privileged few.

North Korea is pretty much at the end of the fairness road.  The country is so poor and impoverished and hungry that people will risk their lives to try and escape this land of fairness.  To get somewhere that isn’t so fair.  Like South Korea.  Where they have capitalism.  And inequality.  Where someone can come with nothing, work hard and earn a better life.  Allowing them to pay for housing.  And put food in their rumbling bellies.  For a fair and oppressive government surely cannot.  All they can do is create great inequality between the people and the ruling class.  Far greater than that between the rich and poor in any capitalist country.  For the poor in countries like the UK, Canada and the United States are living far better than anyone outside the ruling elite in North Korea.  This is where the fairness road ends.  But it starts with class warfare.  Where a privileged few live the good life through high taxes.  Taxes they use to force fairness on others.  While those at the top manage that fairness.  Skimming a lot off the top of those taxes for themselves.  And what’s left they spend on the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies.  Just enough to make sure the people love their very rich and wealthy government benefactors.  So they can win the next election.  At least while they still have to deal with those pesky elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT112: “You can have liberty or equality but you can’t have both.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Higher Taxes were Okay when it was Someone Else’s Money but they’re Just Plain Unfair when it’s your Money

People throw around the word ‘equality’ a lot.  Especially politicians.  To make life fair.  More egalitarian.  Where they make the rich pay their fair share.  For they won’t just voluntarily pay their fair share, will they?  Sounds fair, yes?  And just.  For no one should be ‘too rich’ when others have ‘so little’.  Of course the only people who agree with this are the ones who have ‘so little’.  Those who are ‘too rich’ are not all that supportive of using their wealth to help others be more equal.  Especially when the scale that measures what is ‘too rich’ is a sliding scale.  For someone believes a person is ‘too rich’ when they have more than he or she does.  And that holds true even if they win the lotto.

It’s open season on rich people.  Everyone attacks them.  For they are easy prey.  There are few of them.  So angering them won’t have a huge impact at the polls.  Which is why politicians whip up a fury of hate against them.  Which the people who have ‘so little’ are eager to join them in that hate.  Because they hate rich people.  They hate them a lot.  And there just isn’t anything good they can say about them.  They hate them so much that they buy lotto tickets in hopes of becoming rich people themselves.  Because that’s the only thing that can assuage their hate of rich people.  Becoming rich people.

People who have ‘so little’ will define anyone as having ‘too much’ if they have more than they do.  But if they win the lotto it’s a different story.  For rich people like them don’t have ‘too much’ then.  In fact they become downright greedy.  And become everything they once hated.  They don’t want to share their winnings.  (Even some in lotto groups who bought a winning ticket will try to keep that ticket for themselves, saying they bought THAT ticket with his or her own money and not the group’s money and therefore they don’t have to share THOSE winnings.)  And they sure don’t want to pay half of their winnings in taxes.  Higher taxes were okay when it was someone else’s money.  But they’re just plain unfair when it’s your money.  It’s just a fact of life.  People are greedy.  Even those with ‘so little’.

If there is No Incentive to Choose the Hard Jobs then Someone will have to Coerce People to ‘Choose’ Them

Consider this.  How hard would you work if you had to deposit your entire paycheck into a general fund?  Let’s call the fund the Equality Fund.  All workers everywhere on payday take their checks to the bank and deposit them into the Equality Fund.  And then they get their ‘equal share’ from that fund to live on.  So doctors and janitors earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  NFL franchise players and workers in fast food earn different incomes.  But their distributions from the Equality Fund are the same.  Ditto for movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and lotto winners.  They all deposit their income into the General Fund.  And live on the same money as do hair stylists, Wal-Mart greeters, busboys and gardeners.  Even the people who don’t work.  Who love the Equality Fund.  Because with equality they don’t have to work.  Pretty sweet.  Don’t work.  And get paid the same as those who do work.  So they have no incentive ever to go to work.  And some of those who do work start asking themselves, “Why am I still working?” 

If there was an Equality Fund how hard would you work at your job?  Would you even work?  Would you choose a difficult career field that took a lot of costly education?  Would you work that hard to earn more money only to deposit those high earnings into the Equality Fund?  Instead of using those high earnings to buy a nice house?  In a nice neighborhood?  With nice schools for your kids?  Probably not.  Let’s say everyone is paid $50,000 from the Equality Fund.  Regardless of what you paid into it.  Either nothing.  Or millions of dollars.  Everyone lives on $50,000 per year.  Not too shabby.  Especially for low-income people or the unemployed.  They’re going to love the Equality Fund.  But those paying in millions will not be living in million dollar mansions.  Buying expensive cars.  Big boats.  Fly in their private jets.  Or even fly first-class.  No one will wear a Rolex watch.  Or other expensive jewelry.  Or high fashion.  No one will have these things.  Not when you’re raising a family on $50,000 per year.  Even if your work skills bring in the kind of high earnings that could afford them.  Because all of your pay will go into the Equality Fund.  Is that fair?  It’s equality.  But is it fair?

Let’s take this a little further.  Say everyone wises up and quits working.  Because they get the same amount to live on whether they work or not.  So why work?  Those who would like to tell the boss off and quit working are no doubt saying, “Sounds good to me.”  But this would cause a problem.  For what would you buy with your $50,000 annual allotment if no one worked?  For you need people to work if you want to buy a house.  A car.  A boat.  Fly.  Wear a watch.  Jewelry.  Clothing.  Sure, some will say we can just buy old homes.  And buy imported cars, boats, planes, watches, jewelry and clothing.   Sure, you could.  But you can’t import everything.  You can’t import road maintenance.  You can’t import port facilities and railroad infrastructure.  Or the people to operate them.  You can’t import restaurants complete with chefs, servers and busboys.  You can’t import emergency trauma care.  Maternity care.  Cardiac care.  A college education.  You just can’t import everything.  Someone has to work these jobs.  Even though they won’t get paid any more for working than they would for sitting at home collecting their allotment from the Equality Fund.  And when no one chooses to work at the jobs we can’t replace with imports someone will have to ‘help’ them change their mind.  To make them choose to work.  Even if it’s against their will. 

This is the problem with equality.  If we pay everyone equally no one will choose the hard jobs.  They’ll choose the easy jobs.  Worse, if we pay them equally whether they work or not they’ll simply choose not to work.  And if there is no incentive to choose the hard jobs then someone will have to coerce people to ‘choose’ them.

You can have Liberty or Equality but You can’t have Both

To choose your career you need liberty.  To choose to go to school to learn a high-paying skill you need liberty.  To work in a high-paying job you need liberty.  To keep your high-pay earnings you need liberty.  To work hard and to advance yourself to reach your personal goals you need liberty.  To play in the NFL you need liberty.  To be a movie star or rock star or pop star you need liberty.  To play the lotto and keep your winnings you need liberty.  To do all of these things you need liberty.  And one other thing that makes all of these things possible.  Inequality.

People working in fast food can’t earn the same as neurosurgeons.  Because if they paid their workers that much the cost of fast food would be prohibitive.  And no one would be neurosurgeons because it’s a lot less stressful working in fast food.  It doesn’t take years of training.  Or expensive malpractice insurance.  You don’t have to live with accidents that permanently disable or kill people.  Or deal with their aggrieved family members.  So that’s why we pay neurosurgeons so much.  It’s a very difficult profession that few choose.  Because so few choose this profession those that do are very valuable resources.  Demanding high pay.  And because they demand such high salaries it attracts the few who are willing to deal with all the things that come with being a neurosurgeon.  The high pay helps people choose this valued career despite the high personal costs.  So inequality is a good thing.  It provides incentive to choose the hard jobs.  Which is a good thing.  For who wants a low-paid person forced to be a neurosurgeon operating on his or her brain?

Everyone who has ever bought a lotto ticket agrees that inequality is a good thing.  They wouldn’t buy a ticket otherwise.  Because they buy those tickets to become rich.  To have more than other people.  That is, to be unequal.  Because everyone is greedy.  Just like football players, movie stars, rock stars, pop stars and, of course, lotto winners.  And not a one of them is going to work hard to develop their unique earning potential just to put the fruits of their labor into the Equality Fund.  They may talk the talk.  Support Democrats.  But they do that just so the people who have ‘so little’ leave them alone.  For they all still live in their million dollar mansions.  Because they like being unequal.  The more unequal the better.  They adore their pampered lives.  And when it comes to choosing liberty or equality they choose liberty.  As their comfortable lives clearly show.  For you can have liberty.  Or you can have equality.  But you can’t have both.  And that’s okay with them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Capitalism vs. Communism, Socialism, Occupy Wall Street and President Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2011

The Corporation was Created to Raise Capital and Manage Risk so they can Build the Stuff we Want

No wonder the Occupy Wall Street people have their heads filled with nonsense.  Here’s an Ivy League publication that doesn’t even understand what a stakeholder in a corporation is.  They have a stake, i.e., a share.  They own stock.  They’ve risked their capital.  And if you don’t risk capital, then you’re just not a stakeholder (see Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know by Hari Bapuji and Suhaib Riaz posted 10/14/2011 on the Harvard Business Review).

The demonstrators are asserting that they are stakeholders in American business, and they’re correct — they are stakeholders, as consumers, as employees, and as citizens affected by the financial system in general.

No they’re not.  Unless they bought stock in these corporations.  Which I doubt, because people typically don’t protest against companies they invest in.  Unless they’re idiots.

The corporation was created to raise large amounts of capital.  And manage risk.  By selling stocks to shareholders.  So they can raise the money to build the stuff we want.  Things that hopefully would make a profit one day.  A profit that the shareholders would share in.  As they are the ones taking the BIGGEST risk.  The corporate officers of these corporations have a fiduciary responsibility with the shareholders.  To make a profit.  It’s their company.  They paid for it.  And these shareholders owe nothing to that mob on Wall Street.  Unless any of them own stock.

You’d think those writing for a business school would understand basic business 101.

Businesses should look at whether existing models of compensation are contributing to this inequality. They need to find ways to reward performance without increasing pay disparities. Developing new models of compensation and governance is not easy and can only be possible through a long-term and sincere engagement with a wide set of stakeholders, such as regulators, academics, and representatives of workers.

They want to do away with merit.  And introduce something more akin to communism.  Where everyone is equal.  No matter the value of their work.  People have tried this.  In North KoreaCuba.  And the former Soviet Union.  Note the word ‘former’ in that last one.  There’s a reason why it’s former.  No one wanted to do the harder jobs if they didn’t get paid any more for the additional brain power or risk.  And those stuck carrying the weight of their comrades?  They just didn’t bust their ass in the process.  And that’s why the Soviet Union is a ‘former’ union.

But this is what the Occupy Wall Street people want.  Force people to do those harder jobs.  But pay these wealth creators no more than them.  Even if they only work at a Starbucks.  Or collect government assistance.

The Egalitarian Polices of the Great Society Destroyed the Economy in the Seventies

So an Ivy League publication doesn’t understand business.  But you know who does?  Al Jazeera.  Their conclusions are all wrong but at least they get a lot of stuff right along the way (see The instability of inequality by Nouriel Roubini posted 10/14/2011 on Al Jazeera).

While these protests have no unified theme, they express in different ways the serious concerns of the world’s working and middle classes about their prospects in the face of the growing concentration of power among economic, financial, and political elites. The causes of their concern are clear enough: high unemployment and underemployment in advanced and emerging economies; inadequate skills and education for young people and workers to compete in a globalised world; resentment against corruption, including legalised forms like lobbying; and a sharp rise in income and wealth inequality in advanced and fast-growing emerging-market economies.

Of course, the malaise that so many people feel cannot be reduced to one factor. For example, the rise in inequality has many causes: the addition of 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians to the global labour force, which is reducing the jobs and wages of unskilled blue-collar and off-shorable white-collar workers in advanced economies; skill-biased technological change; winner-take-all effects; early emergence of income and wealth disparities in rapidly growing, previously low-income economies; and less progressive taxation.

American industry is uncompetitive.  That appears to be the problem.  That’s why there are fewer jobs.  So people who earn income via their labor are being priced out of the market by their generous pay and benefit packages.  But people who earn their income via capital always have a place to invest capital.  Capital is capital.  It is always competitive.  That’s why more wealth is accumulating to the rich.  Because they haven’t killed their golden goose.  Like unions have killed unskilled American manufacturing.

This doesn’t explain those kids on Wall Street, though.  The ones with college degrees.  Their problem is their degrees.  Many of them are worthless.  Probably a lot of English majors out there.  Or have degrees in sociology.  Anthropology.  Philosophy.  Women studies.  Etc.  But there just aren’t a lot of stores out there selling this stuff.

The increase in private- and public-sector leverage and the related asset and credit bubbles are partly the result of inequality. Mediocre income growth for everyone but the rich in the last few decades opened a gap between incomes and spending aspirations. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the response was to democratise credit – via financial liberalisation – thereby fuelling a rise in private debt as households borrowed to make up the difference. In Europe, the gap was filled by public services – free education, health care, etc. – that were not fully financed by taxes, fuelling public deficits and debt. In both cases, debt levels eventually became unsustainable.

Too much debt is never a good thing.  But those bubbles weren’t the result of inequality.  They were the result of trying to make everyone equal.  Extending credit to the credit unworthyPutting people into houses who had no business owning a house.  That was the fault of irresponsible government policy.  Not inequality.  Just like the free education, health care, etc.  We didn’t have these problems when those things weren’t free.  And when only people who could qualify for a mortgage were getting mortgages.

The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalisation, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labour to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct. As he argued, unregulated capitalism can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises, fuelled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts.

Karl Marx was wrong.  At least, he hasn’t been proven right yet.  And many have tried.  The Soviets.  The Chinese.  The North Koreans.  The Cubans.  Marxism has been an abject failure.  And those busts were made worse by monetary policy trying to eliminate them.  If credit wasn’t so cheap and mortgage standards weren’t so low there would have been no housing bubble.  It was government policy that encouraged people to accumulate debt.  Not inequality.  Government is just bad at running things.  Which is why Marxism has been an abject failure.

Thus, the rise of the social-welfare state was a response (often of market-oriented liberal democracies) to the threat of popular revolutions, socialism, and communism as the frequency and severity of economic and financial crises increased. Three decades of relative social and economic stability then ensued, from the late 1940’s until the mid-1970’s, a period when inequality fell sharply and median incomes grew rapidly.

Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europe’s social-welfare model. Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozone’s sovereign-debt crisis now.

Government spending exploded during the Sixties.  They printed so much money in the Seventies to pay for the obligations of the Sixties that Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  So he could print more money.  Giving us record high interest rates.  And record high inflation.  Weak GDP.  And high unemployment.  This was all because of the egalitarian polices of the Great Society.  They destroyed the economy in the Seventies.  Reagan and Thatcher brought back prosperity.  By stopping the insanity.  They cut taxes.  Cut regulation.  And the economy took off.  It’s the reversal of the Reagan-Thatcher policies that are returning the economy to the malaise of the Seventies.  Both in the UK.  And the USA.

In the Soviet Union all of the Good Stuff came from the Decadent, Capitalist West via the Black Market

But this socialist/communist claptrap is what they’re teaching in American universities.  These protestors don’t understand the role of capital in the modern economy.  The entrepreneurial spirit.  Risk management.  They don’t understand anything other than that they weren’t born into privilege.  And this just pisses them off (see OWS’ Program? Distract From Dems’ Failures by Charles Krauthammer posted 10/14/2011 on Investors.com).

To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt.

What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich. Then? Haven’t gotten that far. No postprandial plans.

It’s ironic that that they hate corporate America but love to indulge in their products.

During the Cold War.  When there was full employment behind the Iron Curtain.  In the tractor factories.  People stood in line all day to buy soap and toilet paper at reasonable prices.  But they bought Levi’s on the black market.  And anything else they wanted that wasn’t dreary and drab.  Or scratchy and caustic.  Whatever the price.  Why?  Because all of the good stuff came from the decadent, capitalist West.

These protestors need to read a little history of what it was like when there was true egalitarianism.  It sucked.  That’s why Soviets defected to the U.S.  And Americans didn’t defect to the U.S.S.R.  Because capitalism was better.  People lived better under capitalism than they did under communism.

The President of the United States should not use the Risk of Civil War as a Reelection Strategy

As Krauthammer says in his column, this Occupy Wall Street movement has political motives.  Obama is following in the shoes of Jimmy Carter.  The economy is in the toilet.  His policies have all failed.  And he has no chance of reelection based on his record.  So he is using the class warfare card.  Which is irresponsible.  And dangerous.

Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Mobs are easy to create.  But they take on a life of their own.  Are dangerous.  And unpredictable.  The president of the United States should not use the risk of civil war as a reelection strategy.  Because it’s not exactly constitutional.  Or in keeping with the oath of office he swore.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,