redistribution of wealth

Confiscating wealth in the name of fairness

by Fran Smith on June 10, 2009 · 1 comment

in Economy, Features, Personal Liberty, Zeitgeist

An excellent article in the June issue of Commentary Magazine, taking to task President Obama’s broad attacks on the wealth-producers in American society in the name of fairness.  Author Francis Cianfrocca in “Wealth creation under attack”  points out the flaws in this reasoning:

The United States is organized on the principle of the consent of the governed. Power and legitimacy do not flow from the state to the people, but the other way around. In this respect, what individuals do is entirely their own business, just so long as they do not violate the law or the sovereignty of other citizens. Generating wealth is therefore no different from any other private human activity; it is and should remain private, outside the reach of government, until the point at which it impinges on others.

This is a philosophical understanding of American society with which Obama and his policymakers are not in immediate sympathy. They are not opposed to wealth generation; nothing they say indicates any such thing. But they do not see it as a private activity. Rather, they see it as a human endeavor that can and should be harnessed to aid in producing the social changes they believe are most beneficial for the greatest number of people. In the view of the Obamaites, private wealth is not a bad thing, but neither is it a good thing; it is only good if it can be used in furtherance of large-scale public goals.

But this understanding is deeply flawed, because it fails to take into account the factors that motivate the generation of wealth. Those who work to get rich are not doing so because they are seeking to provide enhanced tax receipts for the government, or to make it easier for government to do what elected officials and unelected bureaucrats think is best. They are, rather, fulfilling basic human desires—to excel, to succeed, to best the other person, to show the old man. Those desires provide the drive. The drive provides the wealth. The wealth provides the ancillary benefit for others. And the act of wealth creation itself creates opportunities for others. Americans pursue business and wealth for their own reasons, and we should be deeply hesitant to throw those out with the proverbial bathwater. The unintended consequences of such action could be catastrophic.

Cianfrocca concludes with an eloquent paen to freedom — and the ability to create wealth:

More generally, the United States under Barack Obama may be taking a hatchet to a pillar of the American social contract, which is that Americans should be free of encumbrance in their pursuit of private wealth. The pursuit of prosperity made America the most prosperous nation on earth. The excessive pursuit of fairness at the expense of wealth creation will not make America fairer. It will, however, make America poorer—and less free.

Should the Anti-Stimulus Package be tan or beige?

by Wayne Crews on February 7, 2009 · 7 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

President Obama more than once last week called it “inexcusable” for Congress to get “bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual” over the anti-stimulus legislation. Actually, there never was such a bog-down, since the bill already passed the House by the Democratic majority, and he never needed much Republican support to make a package of substantial magnitude happen in the Senate. Obama is seeking a sheen of bipartisanship, but if he’s convinced it’s right and he occupies the moral high-ground, it’s not entirely clear why he would talk about an imaginary bog-down of what’s become a “faith-based initiative” that no one can or will stop. Obama’s right–he did win in November, as he taunted detractors last week, and nobody can stop him. It’s just curious that he feels the need to seek rivals’ approval of a highly destructive measure like this when it’s a train that can’t (or won’t) be stopped anyway.

I remember a comedy called “Moon Over Parador;” you could vote for the dictator…but only the red-tinted picture of him or the blue-tinted one. That’s how I felt watching the “debate” this past week over the size of the package:  The House passed a package of $819 billion; the Senate, after hyped-up wrangling, appears set to vote on one of $780 billion late Monday afternoon. Rounding them, they’re still both $800 billion.

The bottom line is we’re getting a trillion-dollar stimulus once interest is taken into account, and the past week’s battle has been about shaving off some cost, but not the underlying premise or the fundamental merit of political stimulus.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said, “We are passing a bold and responsible plan that will help our economy get back on its feet, put people to work and put more money in their pockets.”

This kind of statement embodies the essence of the policy crisis our country faces. It’s hardly “bold and responsible” to redistribute other people’s wealth: it’s the easiest thing in the world to do when you’re a career politician; it’s dismally less “bold” when that wealth hasn’t even been created yet and must be borrowed from our descendants who have no recourse against you now. So the package is actually reckless and irresponsible beyond Thunderdome. Like much government spending, whether routine or that squandered during past recessions, it’s politically motivated and unconnected to economic recovery.

And for Reid’s comment to “put more money in…pockets”; Apart from what he’s taking from our descendents, that’s where the money is now. To implement the anti-stimulus, he has to take it out of pockets of some to give it to others. Behold, leadership during a crisis. The many alternative “liberate to stimulate” ideas we and others have been proposing for months are ignored by the political class (only as they can get away with it!), because they don’t increase the power of politicians. Alas, politicians are now salivating at the prospect of the greatest one-time lurch in the size of the State they’ve ever known. This is a stimulus for politicians and the State, not the economy.