We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The Left has been talking a lot these days about income equality. I have no idea why. Even putting aside the fact that the Left's only plan to reduce inequality is to reduce the incomes of the prosperous, I see no virtue in income equality.
Furthermore, I see many serious problems with the concept, just two of which are disincentivization of risk-taking and of the assumption of responsibilities.
What if we had a 95 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million? What dire consequences would flow from this?
Besides the minor details of the loss of freedom and the confiscation of citizens' property (and the fact that people would quit buying those $200 million Powerball tix), what could possibly be wrong with it?
''Because of the way the world is made, this means that some people will receive a lot more money than others.
But is there truly any injustice in this? Consider the alternative. If we say that a baseball pitcher, or a top movie star, a great trader, a gifted entrepreneur, or even a well-motivated and hard-working local beer distributor should submit to an arbitrary salary cap, then what happens? The extra value created by that individual will go to other people, who are quite likely to be politically favored. The inevitable outcome is pervasive corruption.''
Above quote needs its context, but stand alone seems worthwhile. Our new admin is especially clever at setting conditions where power 'freely' flows from elsewhere to it.
Excellent visual clue: the tad-too-wide-eyes of the spokesmen answering questions on such.
Buddy ... "The inevitable outcome is pervasive corruption." It's happening already on a widening scale. I'm violently opposed to anything which interferes with the free market system, where gifted entrepreneurs both great and small have made us the most successful economy in the world ... until the Socialists took over in January.
MM, jappy, elsewhere in that article author uses a phrase something like, 'some people are worth more than others'.
I know he didn't mean it that way, but it did engender the thought that what a great country we have --r had --in that while one person's "product" might be worth vastly more (or less) than another's, both lives are equal before the law --a crime against either will bring out the state in defense. Perhaps not so equally at the very extremes, but only there, and there despite the law.
Jappy, Caesar's army could have re-crossed the Rubicon.
It would've taken quite an effort under a set of intolerable circumstances, but had those obtained, say if Caesar had led them astray and and the false leadership had begun ruining the republic, and another leader had arisen to point this out, there was nothing to prevent the army from marching back over the river.
Whoa...I skipped over this at first without seeing the quote in the box. God help me, I clicked the link and saw the rest of his BS. I"Perhaps a certain outflow of top-flight baseball talent to Japan."??? Then I think, who is this Matt Yglesias idjit, so I look him up on Wiki and he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard??? Can some of you ivy leaguers please explain wtf kind of education one gets at those institutions??? Really. I understood that there was a significant degree of left-leaning ideology, but a lack of understanding to that degree is just utterly astounding.
Seriously, though. What is the point of an ivy league education?
KRW ... I didn't graduate from Harvard [did from Columbia] but I spent two years there, back when it was a pretty good school. But there are always, at even the best of colleges, a certain number of the clueless and the stupid, as we used to call them. These CS types simply don't want to learn. So they don't.
They waste their time until they can leave and say they graduated. Some minds are resistant to any real learning. And some, thank God, are consumed with curiosity. And if the banquet of facts and fancies, inspirations and perspiration, is rich enough, one can emerge from the tunnel of learning with enough challenges and information to last one the rest of his/her life.
In the final analysis, it's a matter of choice. And sweat equity.
Whatever one's life goals, it's all about being prepared for opportunity, and being willing to work at it.
Surely money is not everyone's goal - Maggie's Farm being a good example. However, money is a darn useful and civilizing thing.
Granted, M'am, but this guy graduated magna cum laude. I was thinking more about this as I headed over to the pool hall tonight and the thought occurred to me, reflecting also upon on my own experience, that this sort of situation possibly occurs because our education systems put too much emphasis on memorization and not enough on analytical thinking skills?