Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (3418)	5/3/2004 7:32:11 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Robin Hood: Economic Terrorist? Mario Martinez Jr.—Staff Writer April 29, 2004 We all know the story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men, a group of simple labor workers once enslaved that fought against oppression from the monarchy and the rich. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" was the group's motto. Prancing around Sherwood Forest (a la Men in Tights), Robin and his men would seize the possessions of the rich and give those possessions to the poor, whom the rich apparently oppressed. It's a classic story that's been around longer than organized labor unions. In today's color-coded, "terror alert" society, an age of economic globalization that once seemed innocent enough calls for a modern reevaluation. So what's the deal with this Robin Hood guy? The age of the monarchy is over. In a world where capital and even labor is easily allocated between countries, there is no incentive for workers to stay within the borders of a monarchic society. Why be ruled when you can be ruler? The popular belief among mercantilists (those associated with monarchy rule) recognizes that it is in the best interest of that specific country to save hard money (primarily, gold and silver) and accumulate wealth. This ideology believes economics is a win/lose situation. As a result, political and economic pressures within that country provide winners and losers, those who get wealthy and those who don't. Now, which category you fall into (winner or loser) is mostly determined by birthright. It sucks to play the game when you have no say as to how to play your cards. Today, democracy and capitalism give each player the opportunity to play his or her own hand and to call each other's bluff. Under a completely competitive capitalistic economy, the producers who create with the most efficiency and generate a product demanded by consumers are rewarded justly with wealth. Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman sums up the relationship between the individual and capitalism simply in the title of his best selling thesis "Capitalism and Freedom." He writes, "there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain combinations of political and economic arrangements are possible, and that in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom." So what in the hell does Robin Hood have to do with any of this? Well, simply put, labor unions went out of style with parachute pants and do more damage than the A-Team on speed. While unions did serve an important role in establishing a civil work force in the early 20th century, today organized labor dampers efficiency and causes economic recessions that go further than specific union-exclusive sectors. Take for example the push by U.S. union workers to protect domestic steel production. As a result, a tariff on cheaper imported steel goes into effect. Who wins? No one. Companies who use steel as a major source of production (car manufactures, construction) are held at bay paying a higher price for a good that could be cheaper and that could spur job growth. Employing those union workers from the steel industry, foreign steel producers are forced to artificially raise the price on their product because of this tariff, and the United States promotes an inefficient industry (For examples in the danger of current union representation, see the Cancun Trade Talks). Robin Hood was effectively the head of a labor union. As a proponent of the redistribution of income -- steal from the rich and give to the poor -- ideologically, Robin was a social democrat. What makes this classical figure so wrong is that Robin never understood the division between greed and money. Ayn Rand, a proponent of free markets and individual freedom, painted the clearest picture of this in the second most influential literary work ever (behind the Bible, according to USA Today), "Atlas Shrugged," where she explains the misconception concerning money. She argues that if money is the root of all evil, then what is the root of money; the answer is hard work. So does hard work constitute the existence of evil? "Wealth," Rand explains, "is the product of man's capacity to think." This being true, Robin was nothing more than a fraud who had nothing important to say. He was subservient to an illusion called duty, the ability to act for the sole reason of compliance, without understanding the reason for compliance. By taking aim at the rich instead of specifically the monarch, he effectively isolates his cause and becomes highly contradictory. The real villain in Robin Hood's story is not the rich or the poor; it is the means by which the rich are rich and the poor are poor. In his case, a monarchy; in general, it is the government who believes it knows better than those it governs.