Category: freedom

Categories
economics freedom

Harry Potter and income inequality

There’s a lot you can do with statistics, not all of them are useful. For example, I could average all of the address numbers in a zip code. I would come up with a number, but it wouldn’t mean anything and no one would care. In a similar vein, I can compare what the wealthiest people make and compare it  to what the rest make. Once again, we’d come up with a number, but it doesn’t actually tell you anything useful. Unfortunately, a lot of people do care about it…

The only reason why income inequality might actually be useful is if you think that making a lot of money is just a bad thing. In that case, you could point at those people and say, “Look, look at all the bad stuff they’re doing!” I’ve already covered some of this  ground before, but I’ll recap. There are four ways you can make money. You can a) take money from someone else, b) buy low and sell high,  c) offer a service that people find valuable or d) come up with a new idea or insight that lots of people like. “A” is generally called theft, and if you do it on a big enough scale you can get incredibly rich. See Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il for examples. “B” is your typical businessman and financial wizard. “C” has various sports and entertainment superstars as examples. “D” is made up of folks like Steve Jobs and JK Rowling, . Type “a” folks are unquestionably bad, we need to have as few of those people as possible. There are quite a few people that assume that type B’s are bad, but c’mon, there’s nothing wrong with buying something and selling it for more than you paid. They perform a valuable service, and they are rewarded for it. C’s and D’s are not controversial, everyone likes them. But somehow when B’s C’s and D’s are grouped together as “the rich,” they get treated like type A’s, as if they did something wrong.

 

That’s the only basis I can think of as to why people care if people are making more money than others. A friend recently posted a link to a NYT article wondering why economists aren’t saying more about income inequality. The whole piece has at it’s core the idea that income inequality=a bad thing. Here’s a few counterpoints to that.

 

Imagine that JK Rowling moved next door to me. The income inequality in my neighborhood would shoot through the roof. Would I be worse off? Would anyone in the neighborhood? Even though she is only one person, she would impact the overall income inequality in the country. What if all of the 1000 most wealthy people moved to the US. Would we be worse off? If my next door neighbor become a football superstar, would anyone be worse off? The argument that we are actually worse off because of them only makes sense if those folks are taking money from everyone else. A lot of the arguments about why income inequality matters seem to revolve around jealousy.

The statistic of income inequality is an artifact, it is derived from something, but it has no meaning of its own. It has no descriptive power at all, it doesn’t give us any information. The fact that JK Rowling is worth $1.5 billion is totally irrelevant to me. The world is much better off due to her efforts that made her rich.  What’s wrong with that? Is it her fault if other people aren’t doing things that people consider as valuable? Should anything be done to prevent people from making gobs of money just because some people don’t? If you have a burning, powerful hatred of the type B’s of the world and feel that they should be punished (God knows why) for being wealthy, just remember that you can’t hurt them without hurting the Steve Jobs and JK Rowlings of the world.

I’ll talk about the “fact” that the wealthiest 1% have made significant gains over the last 30 years while the average hourly wage has gone down (according to the NYT article) in another post. If you want to read the original article, it is here:

Economic View – Confronting Income Inequality – NYTimes.com: “”

 

Categories
economics free market freedom

Making money

There are two ways to get more money. People can willingly give you money in exchange for a good or service you offer. That’s business, trade, etc. The other way you can get more money is if you take it from someone else. That is commonly called theft.

 

If you want to discuss the morality of making money, just look at how they get it. In my view, earning money through selling goods or services is morally neutral. Of course, there might be a moral component to those goods and services, but as far as the act of making money goes, I don’t see any moral component to it, good or bad. Contrast that with theft, which is always a bad thing.

What’s interesting is how people see the fabulously wealthy. Somehow, without even thinking about it, the moral indignation of theft creeps into the conversation even though the money was voluntarily given to those people. There is an assumption that hedge fund managers, Wal Mart, athletes, etc. have somehow done something wrong by making all that money. There’s probably an historical bias there. Over the centuries, when someone became very wealthy, it usually did involve stealing money from someone. Various barons, conquistadors, armies, kings, etc. have made a habit of it. Modern day thugs such as Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Hosni Mubarak, etc. use a similar approach. Contrast those guys with Warren Buffet, JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the like. Notice anything? Right, the first set of guys (why is it always guys?) use the power of governments to extract wealth from their populations. They are thieves. They get rich at the expense of someone else. As they get richer, others get poorer. The second set of guys made their money by offering services or products and getting paid for them. Trick question, who became poorer so that Bill Gates could make all that money?

The answer is of course no one. Wealth creators get rich without making anyone poorer. Yes, people had to give some of their money to Bill, but they got something back for it, it was an exchange. As a matter of fact, people got much more out of Bill’s products than what it cost them to buy them. Through trade, both parties are made better off. That’s trade for you, and it’s the appeal offered by actual free trade and capitalism.

 

“But that billion dollars they made could pay for 20,000 teachers!” That’s a different issue. You don’t like what they do with their money. I’ll first point out that it is always easier to allocate other people’s money (see congress for a prime example). I’ll also point out that they are not you and do not share your priorities. The fact that they don’t share your priorities is probably why they made a billion dollars… When you worry and fret about what people do with the money they make, try to remember all of the people that they made better off through their activities. It is that which made them rich. People had to decide that what they were offering was worth more than their money. The billionaires have already done a lot for society simply by offering a demanded service or product and they got rich as a reward for it. No, they probably won’t pay for 20,000 teachers, but they will do something with that money. They will reward someone else for services and products and the cycle goes on and on. Earning money is a great thing for everyone.

 

Categories
economics free market freedom

What capitalism is

In my last post, I gave a defense of capitalism against a common critique (it’s exploitive, it’s evil, etc.) but I didn’t really talk about what it is. Capitalism is what happens when people are free to make the most of what they have. People have skills, education, money, land, etc. and they want to use those things to better themselves. That’s capitalism. It is something that occurs naturally, it isn’t something you can legislate or put into action from on high. A government can do little but impede it. Capitalism is a “ground up” as opposed to a “top down” phenomena. Clearly, free trade is involved in this too, they are related, but not exactly the same thing.

Here’s the thing about capitalism, what it looks like will vary depending on what system it is in. What many people decry as capitalism is really the effect of being in a system where influence is being sold. There is a big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism. Here in the US, companies routinely get special breaks, incentives, and outright subsidies from the government. Strangely enough, people tend to get angry with the companies instead of the system that allows them, encourages them actually, to purchase that influence. Why get angry at the people asking when you cold get angry at the people selling the influence? Cronyism is a feature of a government with too much influence.

Capitalism happens regardless of what system is implemented in the government. The uglier the capitalism is, usually the stricter the government control of it is. The overall impact of capitalism will be better the more freedom there is. Black markets usually breed violence as they run up against government authority. With true free markets, violence just isn’t worth it. Free markets also allow people to improve themselves as they accumulate capital. That capital may be in the form of money and the things you can get with money, but often times it takes the form of improved skills. This is why easy entry into the job market is so crucial. Developing skills is the surest way to increase pay. If you have no skills, or very few, you are going to have to start at the low end of the pay scale. As you develop more skills, capitalism will allow you to parley them into better jobs. Having a large pool of skilled workers will allow countries’ overall wages to climb.

 

Capitalism is something that is done by individuals trying to make the most of what they have. INothing wrong with that. n my view, anything that tries to limit that is the true evil.

Categories
economics freedom

Capitalism is evil? Hardly.

A friend just posted this to his facebook profile:

”Capitalism has always required disposable populations in order to function. In our system of global apartheid other people must toil in fields and sweatshops, die in resource wars and watch as their countries are poisoned in order for us to enjoy comfortable, privileged lives.”

Groan, where do I start? How about the beginning… First off, capitalism does not require a “disposable population.” People do not have to toil in “sweatshops” or fields. They really don’t. We could have machines do everything they do. So, would those people suddenly be better off when relieved of their jobs?

The fact that they are able to be employed for less than a machine would cost is their primary attraction. If companies are not allowed to make things in China, Vietnam, India etc. then they will make them domestically on machines or they won’t be made at all. So who is made better off in that situation? There are fewer things made and fewer people employed. By allowing companies to offer jobs in those places, people are employed, and the product is made for whoever wants it. Yes, some people make more than others, some will become rich, but it’s not as though they don’t have to trade for that prosperity. Through cooperation, everyone is made better off. That’s capitalism. You say that one group shouldn’t benefit so much more? Well, maybe (I don’t think so myself) but the fact is that is the only way these things get done at all. Without the potential of making a ton, the venture doesn’t start. Of course, most of those things don’t work out, and the capitalist loses everything while the workers have been paid. Risk vs. reward, it’s the nature of the beast.

Wars are fought for resources, but who wages those? Governments do. Whenever there is violence, you will find politics just under the surface. Whether it is about diamonds, oil, land, or whatever, violence is used to further political ends, and that usually translates to power. Capitalism relies on free trade between free people. Wars are waged by central authorities looking out for their own interests. Remember, countries that trade heavily with each other rarely fight each other.

 

The environmental impact is a problematic issue. Seemingly every country that industrializes goes through a period of rampant pollution. England, the US, France, Russia, they all had awful environmental track records. Remember Love Canal? How about the Cuyahoga River catching on fire? As these places got richer and richer, there was a lower and lower tolerance for pollution. The same thing is happening in China, give them some time. Where this won’t happen is where the government owns the polluting industry and benefits from it. China is an odd exception, they have walked the line between private and public ownership and they have had mixed results. One thing that has become clear over the years is that it’s almost never too late to clean things up. It isn’t clear how to avoid these problems and allow the areas to develop economically. History has shown us that if people have their say, awful pollution is a temporary situation. Poverty and pollution always go together. Fix the first and it will fix the second automatically.

 

The bottom line is that capitalism is a wondrous thing when it is allowed to work. It breeds cooperation, higher living standards (including a distaste for pollution), and an endless variety of things that people can choose as a profession. Economic growth takes time. People, and countries, have to start at the beginning, but recent history has shown how, within a few generations, wonderful things can occur. The really important thing to remember is that capitalism is the only way to achieve this. The more you veer away from capitalism, the lower the standard of living and the less progress there is. If you want to better people’s lives, let capitalism take place. All it takes is freedom to let that happen.

 

Categories
culture freedom

It’s sexual because we think it’s sexual…

Saudi Arabia is the home of many ludicrous laws based on the premise that it might ignite sexual desire. Any number of things are disallowed or forbidden outright all in the name of keeping people’s morals in compliance of a designated morality. I ran across this news article that was about women smoking water pipes in Gaza. Most telling is the quote from an official “It is inappropriate for a woman to sit cross-legged and smoke in public. It harms the image of our people,.” Later, the article goes on to say that women smoking water pipes are frowned upon because of the “sexual connotations.” It’s a wonder that they allow them to eat… I’m not going to get into why it’s OK for a man to do it…

The thing is, unless someone told you that there were sexual connotations with smoking a water pipe or crossing your legs, you would never think that there was. I have long held that the crackdown on anything that might possibly have a sexual connotation actually puts sex into the forefront of people’s minds. When you live in a place that thinks that water pipes, wet hair, or even the opposite sex immediately brings sex to mind, I think you are pretty sexually repressed. When I was in Yemen, people there would comment on how sexual our culture is. That’s true enough, but all of our sexual connotations were about, you know, sex. We don’t wig out if someone goes into public with wet hair, eats a banana, or God forbid, talk to a member of the opposite sex. We can do normal things without thinking about sex because we are allowed to think about sex on its own terms. I honestly believe that the cultures that try to enforce laws like that are the most sexually obsessed people on the planet.

 

The Associated Press: Some Gaza women smolder over Hamas’ water-pipe ban: “”

(Via .)

Categories
freedom politics

Extra-judicial

I’m not using the prefix of extra to mean larger, in this context, it means outside of. I have written before about the administration’s use of predator drones. Like I said, there is an argument to be made about pursuing folks that are actively fighting the US forces beyond the combat zone and doing away with them. I don’t buy them, but the arguments can be made. Where I have a real issue is when US citizens are targeted, ones that are not actively fighting the US. The administration has OK’d the killing of this American for inspiring the underwear bomber. There has not been a trial, there is no indictment, there is no jury. Did we gun down Tim McVeigh when we found him? No. We didn’t even kill Sadaam when we found him. Maybe this guy deserves to die, but surely we shouldn’t allow the executive branch to execute whomever they think they should. If Dubya had done this, there would have been universal outrage, and it would have been warranted. The current president is getting a free pass and I have no idea why.

I was happy to see a modest protest about this though. There is what looks like a transformer or phone circuit box on the right as you go over the Key bridge into Georgetown.  On it has been spray painted an image of a predator and the word “extrajudicial.” I doubt most people understand or care, but I am glad to see it. I am glad that there are some people that are bothered with the power that had been seized by Dubya and is now being wielded by Obama. I wish there were more…

 

Categories
free market freedom

Self sufficiency and freedom

 

Our entire way of life depends on others doing lots of work for us. We do our work for them as well. It’s a great system. You do what you you can to help other people, and they do what they can to help you. Isn’t it great to have other people do things for you? It’s especially good since I have no idea how to make a lot of the things I use. We all barter our labor for the things that we want through the intermediary of money. You work and are given IOU’s to other people’s labor in the form of money. Other people will do almost anything for you in exchange.

When viewed in this way, it is easy to see why a society based on freedom of exchange works so well. It gives all of us the most varied products and services and the lowest prices. When you see money as the way to barter your labor for others labor, paying low prices seems even better! Cooperation is the name of the game, and freedom is the cause of it, and the result of it.

People that espouse “self sufficiency” have a general distrust of this idea of free cooperation. In my more cynical moments, I get the feeling that they just distrust people in general. Self sufficiency is the road to privation. You spend much more of your most precious commodity, time, on things that could be gotten much more easily with exchange. Cooperation and exchange is the two laned road to abundance and freedom.

There are people that espouse the idea that we should grow our own food, raise our own animals, and do our own canning (canning for God’s sake!) in order to pursue freedom. All that stuff is fine if you enjoy doing them, but don’t pretend that you are any more “free” because you did it yourself. Don’t kid yourself, you have given up a lot to do those things.

Our current wealth is evidence. I once asked my grandmother why she didn’t can things and make pickles anymore. She gave me a look that I’ll never forget and said, “Because I don’t have to anymore.” Canning was hard work and it simply wasn’t worth her time. She would have laughed in my face if I had told her that some people think that canning is part of the formula for freedom.

Go shopping for the things you need, work for other people’s benefit, and enjoy the extra time you get instead of doing everything yourself. What could be more freeing than that?

 

Categories
culture freedom

Memorial Day

A big thank you to all of you that served and especially the ones that didn’t come back. I have a special place in my heart reserved for the men that fought and died for us and who did not feel they had a choice.A month or so ago, my friend David came to town and we visited the Vietnam memorial and the WWII memorial. There was a stark contrast between those wars, and the willingness of people to serve in them. As I walked along the wall that is the Vietnam memorial, I wondered how many of them were there willingly. Thank God the draft is over. Those of us that grew up after Vietnam are freer than the ones that grew up before or during. Your sacrifice is not forgotten.

 

In addition to remembering the bravery of the soldiers that fought and died for us, we should also remember the additional burden of the ones that were forced into dying for us. Memorial day should be a day to remember bravery, but it should mostly be a remembrance of sacrifice. 

Categories
freedom

The point of free speech

The more I think about it, the more I think the folks that don’t like the outcome of the Citizens United case don’t understand the concept of free speech. Everyone I have heard complain about the verdict has essentially wanted to curb the power of large corporations. In their mind, it is perfectly justifiable to limit their ability to run political ads.

Here’s the trouble, in doing that, you also restrict the ability of smaller, grassroots organizations to express themselves as well. The proponents of the McCain-Feingold legislation are willing to eliminate the voices of smaller, activist organizations in order to prevent the possibility of a corporation abusing its so-called power.

The hell of it is that the corporations will find other ways of influencing lawmakers, the rich will always do OK. It is the smaller voices that need to be heard, perhaps even in opposition to corporate interests. That is the entire point behind the concept of free speech.

Yes, the overturning of that legislation may lead to more corporate political activism but it is also the only way to fight against that activism. Instead of trying to limit certain groups, we should instead try to make sure that everyone has the chance to get their point across. Free speech for everyone is the only way.

Categories
freedom

Free speech

I keep hearing outrage, gnashing of teeth, etc. over the recent Citizens United ruling. I’ve been questioning people as to why they support what I see as an obvious restriction of free speech and the answers seem to boil down to one of the following:

1) Corporations are bad and you can’t trust them.

2) Corporations have too much money.

3) Corporations are not people!

4) People are mindless lemmings that will do whatever ads tell them to do.

Keep in mind that the law in question applied to not only what we consider the typical corporations, but also non-profits (more on this later), grassroots organizations, and essentially any grouping of people. So, perhaps there are some “bad” corporations, but surely there are groups that deserve and need to be heard close to an election too!

Points 2 and 4 are related. It is argued that because some corporations have “unlimited money” that they also have unlimited power over the voters. Why people think that Exxon or Chase have Svengali-like powers is beyond me. Ads can present information, they can never coerce, so why the fear of their ads? Ah, because people are stupid of course. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to this train of thought. Ads will, on the whole, either reinforce people’s priors or they will give them something to rail against. If an ad presents information that changes someone’s mind then surely it was useful and should have been aired.

As to the corporations are not people bit, I think that it relates to point #1. Organizations are groups of people. Those people want to get their point across, that’s what free speech is all about.

Even if those 4 things were true, they still do not provide us with an adequate reason to limit free speech. To see why, we only have to look at the basis of this case. A US district court ruled that ads for a movie about Hillary Clinton violated the McCain-Feingold act because they aired within 60 days of an election. Think about that. Whatever you may think about Ms. Clinton, what does it say about our country when you cannot advertise a film that is critical of a politician? What does it say about the state of political discourse when you cannot get a group of people together with a common cause and then let people know about it within 60 days of an election? That’s what this law was about, that’s why I am glad it was struck down.

And what I can’t help but wonder is why the people that scream about this decision are seemingly happy that organizations like the ACLU or AFL-CIO are also muzzled. Don’t you want to hear what they have to say about the candidates? Don’t you want others to hear that too? This is what it really comes down to, you cannot limit free speech of a particular group without limiting many others. Hence the language of the 1st amendment :

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The founding fathers got it right by not referring to individuals, groups, etc. They knew that any limitation on political speech was harmful. If you want freedom of speech, you have to extend it to everyone, no matter how they group themselves. The alternative is to muzzle yourself as well. Free speech for everyone!