He misses the point, focussing on a symptom (inequality) as if it were a moral issue.
I think that anyone who thinks about it wants to relieve suffering of those who suffer and make people better off and happier.
The question is "how?"
If we fail to consider incentives and we let those go out the window, we will kill the golden goose (the increase in wealth that has transformed the world and relieved alot of misery so far, saving lots of lives along the way - progress has been made -now the question is what to do next that is the most effective to increase the gains at an even better rate of improvement).
And, since wealth far beyond what is needed for basic happiness and security serves no purpose beyond providing investments which do result in jobs and more wealth is not needed for consumption by the wealthy, it makes sense to tax the income much higher IF the money will benefit the world overall. Education (including "about life") and infrastructure and preserving the earth (climate, etc.) make sense (and, of course, providing a safety net for those who cannot do the work). All of those are fine AND what is necessary is to structure all of it such that mankind has incentives to do what it takes to be productive, for when that productivity drops it has been proven over and over that the golden goose is killed.
Only leadership that is practical and honest about this will be able to solve the problem. The lack of rationality and responsibility of ALL parties (each of which has a few good ideas, but alot of irrationality and stubbornness also) is stopping us from the great leap forward we could make. How do we change each of those and get to a responsibility and strong ethics mode?
How do we get Democrats to cope with the impending monster of underfunding the Medicare and Social Security plus the interest cost of the debt (which will easily reach $1 trillion a year) when the combined income of those who make over $250K/year is 2.7 trillion before taxes, which is not sufficient to cover the problem. More people need to be more productive and there needs to be more clear incentives for people to be productive. The Democrats mean well, but "meaning well", by itself, is not a strategy that works.
And, yes, the Republicans are pushing too far, too ensconced in the conversation of the incompetence of government (with alot of evidence). They are right about incentives and government fat. And they do wish to provide a safety net, but not one for laziness nor non-incentives to produce - more people who are productive is the only solution that will produce ongoing prosperity - thus, we need to provide all the education, infrastructure, etc., to enable them to contribute productively AND we need to cut off all incentives that allow people to "play the system".
Each side has a weakness, but neither side is legitimately the bad guys nor the solution. It is a balancing act - and as long as any one of us continues to be on the attack (evilizing, taking only one side consistently and not looking at tradeoffs - and not using rational thinking and problem solving) little progress will be made. The difference will be made by one person at a time choosing to go "to the middle" and recognizing that all sides want to do well for the citizens but that only effective compromise will create that. If each one of us continues to complain, blame, evilize, then this will continue.
Will you be the next person to pledge to stand for what works and be willing to stop the opposition and work toward the solution, limiting oneself only to rational, thoughtful, fact-based dialogue? Or will you continue to be strongly on one side or the other? Will you be waiting for "they" (other people) to solve the problem because you are complaining? We will do well if you choose the first and only if you choose the first (your taking personal responsibility to be rational and constructive), because there is no "they" - there is only an "us", constructed one person at a time?
Will you take the pledge?
I think that anyone who thinks about it wants to relieve suffering of those who suffer and make people better off and happier.
The question is "how?"
If we fail to consider incentives and we let those go out the window, we will kill the golden goose (the increase in wealth that has transformed the world and relieved alot of misery so far, saving lots of lives along the way - progress has been made -now the question is what to do next that is the most effective to increase the gains at an even better rate of improvement).
And, since wealth far beyond what is needed for basic happiness and security serves no purpose beyond providing investments which do result in jobs and more wealth is not needed for consumption by the wealthy, it makes sense to tax the income much higher IF the money will benefit the world overall. Education (including "about life") and infrastructure and preserving the earth (climate, etc.) make sense (and, of course, providing a safety net for those who cannot do the work). All of those are fine AND what is necessary is to structure all of it such that mankind has incentives to do what it takes to be productive, for when that productivity drops it has been proven over and over that the golden goose is killed.
Only leadership that is practical and honest about this will be able to solve the problem. The lack of rationality and responsibility of ALL parties (each of which has a few good ideas, but alot of irrationality and stubbornness also) is stopping us from the great leap forward we could make. How do we change each of those and get to a responsibility and strong ethics mode?
How do we get Democrats to cope with the impending monster of underfunding the Medicare and Social Security plus the interest cost of the debt (which will easily reach $1 trillion a year) when the combined income of those who make over $250K/year is 2.7 trillion before taxes, which is not sufficient to cover the problem. More people need to be more productive and there needs to be more clear incentives for people to be productive. The Democrats mean well, but "meaning well", by itself, is not a strategy that works.
And, yes, the Republicans are pushing too far, too ensconced in the conversation of the incompetence of government (with alot of evidence). They are right about incentives and government fat. And they do wish to provide a safety net, but not one for laziness nor non-incentives to produce - more people who are productive is the only solution that will produce ongoing prosperity - thus, we need to provide all the education, infrastructure, etc., to enable them to contribute productively AND we need to cut off all incentives that allow people to "play the system".
Each side has a weakness, but neither side is legitimately the bad guys nor the solution. It is a balancing act - and as long as any one of us continues to be on the attack (evilizing, taking only one side consistently and not looking at tradeoffs - and not using rational thinking and problem solving) little progress will be made. The difference will be made by one person at a time choosing to go "to the middle" and recognizing that all sides want to do well for the citizens but that only effective compromise will create that. If each one of us continues to complain, blame, evilize, then this will continue.
Will you be the next person to pledge to stand for what works and be willing to stop the opposition and work toward the solution, limiting oneself only to rational, thoughtful, fact-based dialogue? Or will you continue to be strongly on one side or the other? Will you be waiting for "they" (other people) to solve the problem because you are complaining? We will do well if you choose the first and only if you choose the first (your taking personal responsibility to be rational and constructive), because there is no "they" - there is only an "us", constructed one person at a time?
Will you take the pledge?
No comments:
Post a Comment