Hiram says: "I am a free market advocate,and am against any state run industry, but perceived or real inequity must be addressed."
This is my response: tough luck. There is a real risk that you'll screw up a really good thing (the low inflation/moderate growth/high venture investment/low unemployment paradigm) if you try to "address" any "real or perceived inequity". The new paradigm is not perfect but if you dick around with it, it may be less perfect overall as a result.
I have much higher faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" than a human being when it comes to resource allocation. Your likely response: but the invisible hand makes x,y,z mistakes. True. BUT the human will make 3 times that amount of mistakes.
You also say, "How would you feel if you did not have health care,were working as a part time worker at 2 or more jobs? In the mean time, you read in the paper Mike Eisner or someone else is taking a large capital gain from options excercised in the millions of dollars,while you cannot afford to take your kids to Disney?"
My response: I wouldn't feel bad at all and I would not resent Michael Eisner. I'd get off my fat ass and go to school, buy a computer and try to figure out how Eisner got to where he is now. I would not sit around bitching about Micheal Eisner and writing nasty letters to congress (to propose ways to disincentivise job-creating entrepreneurs).
Who am I? A becoming-rich ivy-league professional who grew up in a poor, working class, enthnocentric town in the deep south. I didn't spend my early years bitching that my parents were too poor to take me to Disney World, or couldn't buy me Nike basketball shoes. I didn't beg the "haves" of the world to give me a handout. I got off my ass and studied for a summa cum laude college degree. Now, that's what I call an efficient allocation of resources.
What do you think, Mr. Gilder? |
