(November 30, 2016 at 5:01 pm)Faith No More Wrote: So, Chad, do you also agree with the man that wealth inequality is the real problem, or do you just like this article because he scolds the left for playing the race card too much? And what about the part where he calls the election of Donald Trump a catastrophe? Does he make a good point there, too?
I think it is more important for you to know that I read from sources that challenge my own opinions. I do however question the notion that income inequality and wealth disparity are in and of themselves problematic; although, it seems intuitively true. I haven’t learned enough to form an opinion about it, one way or the other. What I do know is that while some wealthy people will be exploitative, many can be magnanimous, e.x. Bill and Linda Gates Foundation. I do not have the certainty that progressives appear to have that nation states are necessarily better at distributing resources for the public good than markets and private citizens. Centralized economic planning hasn’t had a very good track record. And wealth is created primarily by the private sector but only incidentally from governmental enterprises. If governments created most of the wealth, they wouldn’t need to tax people.
Nevertheless, I agree with the author that worker exploitation is a legitimate state concern and within the scope of governmental authority. It’s one of those issues on which everyone can agree in principle but the devil is in the details. He gives no specifics,other that unionization, so there really isn’t much of anything to discuss.
Likewise, it is clear that he takes for granted that his audience will accept social engineering as generally benign. I wouldn’t start with that assumption; but rather, assume that tinkering with market processes, especially by politicians and “experts” with narrow specialties, will have unintended negative consequences. It seems better, IMHO, to tread lightly and slowly than shoot for sweeping transformations. That rule, to proceed with caution using small steps, also applies to removing market deforming regulations already in place.
With respect to liberals “playing the race card” too much, I think he has a legitimate point. It goes back to the saying that if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Racism and sexism are pernicious social evils, but not every social evil is either racism or sexism. Given the paper’s audience it is not surprising that the author finds no reason to justify his negative opinions about Trump. I do not see any real evidence that he is anything other than bombastic, obnoxious, and vulgar. YMMV, obviously. Nevertheless I often find that the most disturbing flaws of people can be turned to good ends. Everyone who hires a lawyer wants him or her to be the most unreasonable asshole when fighting on their behalf.
