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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (37514)	7/2/2005 4:42:48 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I do think there has to be less disparity between the ultra rich,rich,middle class,poor and poverty stricken..." Do you think the degree of disparity is positively or negatively related to economic liberty? "When one million dollars is paid to Trump for speaking... that's too much money." Then don't pay to hear him speak. Personally, I wouldn't pay to hear him speak either, but who are we to tell others they can't do so - or tell him he can't charge for speaking engagements, for that matter? "We have lost perspective. We put children in the hands of teachers who have been in the past underpaid...and expect our athletes who entertain us to receive billions.." Hmm. First, I note that you wrote "in the past underpaid." If that means, by rather clear implication, that they are no longer underpaid (in general, that is, which I think is true), then that would imply that we are gaining rather than losing perspective. Second, "athletes ... receiv[ing] billions" is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? Unless you're talking collectively, in which case you should compare it to other entire industries, not the typical salary in just one other - though I'm not sure what meaningful information one could get from doing that. Third, just as Trump is selling a product, they are selling a product, too - their relatively scarce athletic talents that entertain us. What they are paid is determined by market forces. In other words, US. If we choose to consume what they are selling, in the quantities and at the prices prevailing in the sports entertainment market today, then their huge incomes are the result of our desires as much as theirs, our greed for entertainment as much as theirs for money. That's the way markets work. And personally, I'd have it no other way. If we start heading down that road, where we start legislating what is a "fair" price for someone's product or someone's labor based on the subjective judgements of politicians, bureaucrats, or even voters, then we are on a dangerous road indeed. BTW, "inequity" is what Marxist and socialist doctrine was supposedly all about, too. In the name of reducing it, they increased it - or perhaps more accurately, reduced (nearly) everyone (except the ruling/favored class) to the same dismal level.

To: Suma who wrote (37514)	7/2/2005 11:19:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

I do think there has to be less disparity between the ultra rich,rich,middle class,poor and poverty stricken... Why? Our divisions are only growing right now . When one million dollars is paid to Trump for speaking... that's too much money. Who are YOU to say? It appears there are groups of people perfectly happy to pay their own money in that aggregate amount to hear him. You claim some omniscience beyond them? We have lost perspective. On what? And who says so? We put children in the hands of teachers who have been in the past underpaid. Seemingly an implicit admission that they are now fairly paid. But if people are unwilling to teach for prevailing wages, they are certainly free to find other occupations. If enough do, wages will have to be raised to attract more people into teaching. Adam Smith's hand may be invisible, but it works. ..and expect our athletes who entertain us to receive billions.. Name me one athlete with a pay package that large. And again, people are willing in aggregate to part freely with the money to pay their salaries. Who are you to tell them they can't? You sound like a would socialist dictator. INEQUITY is what I am about. Inequity to whom? To socialist dictators? The last batch that ran the Worker's Paradise in the USSR deserved to be shot.

To: Suma who wrote (37514)	7/3/2005 3:59:39 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It's true that teachers are underpaid for what they do and for the credentials they are required to have. They are trapped in a system that does not reward them for the value that they add to it. Tearing down a system that rewards people for the value that they add to it, whether that is paying Trump $1 megalarge for a speech, paying an over-tall ballplayer $38 megalarge for running up and down a stadium that but for them would be empty, or paying some actor big time for a few weeks hard work that gives him residuals for a lifetime. Don't tear down the system that rewards for value added. Just add teachers to it and pay them what they're worth.

To: Suma who wrote (37514)	7/5/2005 6:05:25 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Affluent notions By Thomas Sowell The Washington Times Commentary July 5, 2005 Recently a friend described a meeting with a nasty-tempered leftist from a rich family. Unfortunately, many leftists were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and, instead of being grateful, are venomous against American society. Conversely, there are people like yours truly who were born on the other end of the economic scale and think this is a great country. No one has really explained either phenomenon. Maybe a painful early confrontation with the facts of life makes it harder in later years to get all worked up over abstract issues that seem to preoccupy the left. Once you have ever had to go hungry, it is hard to get worked up over the fact some people can afford only pizza while others can afford caviar. Once you have had to walk to work from Harlem to a factory south of the Brooklyn Bridge, the difference between driving a Honda and driving a Lexus seems kind of petty, too. Would a poverty-stricken peasant in Bangladesh find the difference between the average American's standard of living and that of a millionaire something to get excited about? If he had a choice between a certainty of getting the first and a 1-in-2 chance of getting the second, would he take the risk to go for a million bucks? I doubt it. The general public has never been as worked up about "income distribution" as the left. Nor is this due to any deeper understanding on the part of the left. On the contrary, liberals and other leftists have constantly misconceived the issue. Differences between people in different income brackets tell you absolutely nothing about who those people are or how long they have been in those brackets. Most Americans who are at some point in their lives in the bottom 20 percent in income are in the top 20 percent at some other point. They usually start at the bottom and work their way up, with a few blips up and down along the way. The more affluent the country becomes, the less those transient statistical differences really matter, except to those with the money, the leisure and the inclination to adopt indignation as a way of life. Environmentalism is another playground of the affluent. "Nature" is wonderful when you can look out on it from your luxury cabin in the woods or upscale digs at the shore. Roughing it in the wild is great when you know that, if something goes wrong, a helicopter can lift you to safety or to a hospital, as the case may be. This is what might be called artificial nature or the illusion of nature. Real nature can be pretty ugly, as the pioneers discovered, and as the bleached bones of their animals or of the pioneers themselves on the old trails can attest. Even in more recent times, anyone who has had to get up on cold mornings, all winter long, to start a fire to heat the house is unlikely to regard it as a romantic experience. It's romantic if you do it for a little while, by choice, knowing it is only a matter of time before you return to your home with central heating, provided by oil you don't want drilled offshore or in Alaska or by coal you deplore seeing mined anywhere. Personally, only within the last few years have I been able to enjoy starting a fire in the fireplace -- in my centrally heated home. It reminded me too much of being a kid down South when a fireplace was all we had to keep warm in the winter. Of all the romantic self-indulgences of the affluent and the wealthy, few are more ridiculous than their passion to "save" farmland. This country has no shortage of farmland or of food. One of our biggest problems is overeating and, even so, there are huge agricultural surpluses that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Yet the greenies with lots of green push for laws and policies to prevent farmers from selling their land to people who want to build houses on it. Would it be worth it to be rich if it also meant being so foolish? I doubt it. Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist. washingtontimes.com