Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
ken For me, as for most expatriate Louisianians, the holiday season means lots of quality time with my groundcar. Satellite radio definitely makes the experience much more pleasant.
I just got done spending a week in Louisiana for the holidays. While I was there, I ate lots of good food, spent time with friends and family, and read the paper.
And gained some interesting insights thereby…
It’s amazing to me that there are so many people who still think that the problems of today’s poor are the result of insufficient taxation of the rich or insufficient regulation of busines leading to an insufficient diversion of material wealth to the poor.
The threats to the poor from economic want are largely solved, and they were solved by the very capitalists that past “reformers” kept denouncing as they pushed their own disastrously wrong-headed schemes. In a capitalist society, the rich get richer, and the poor also get richer.
The poor won’t all rise in status, of course, because that would be logically impossible. Status isn’t a quantity, it’s a comparison – you can’t be high-status except with respect to other people who are lower-status. So when some people object to “poverty”, what they’re really objecting to is status, and the tendency of human beings to observe and respect status, and to organize themselves into pecking orders. As far as I can tell, however, this tendency is hardwired into the brain of the human animal, just as it is in the brains of lots of other types of animals, and we’re stuck with it for as long as humanity as we know it continues to exist; all we can do is keep low status from removing people’s rights or allowing higher-status people to use or threaten violence against them with impunity.
The reformers of the past were wrong to think that the poor could be given the same material wealth as the rich without impoverishing everyone. However, society can, and should, offer equal protection of the laws.
The crime rate in cheap neighborhoods has long been outrageously high, and it’s unfortunate that people who profess such concern for the poor are less likely than average to object to this and more likely than average to suggest “solutions” to poverty that completely ignore the worst aspect of being poor in modern-day America.
So in the interests of real social justice, which now largely boils down to regular justice, I’d like to suggest a few changes to address this problem:
It seems the tale of Joe Republican is making the rounds, telling us about all the wonderful things that Joe takes for granted that were provided by the leftists that he despises.
And what lesson do we learn from this, boys and girls? We learn that the Big Lie works, and that if you keep it up long enough, a century down the road your 100% Grade A Bullshit will be taught as History with a capital “H”.
So let’s take a look at Joe’s life and the wonders that our friends on the left have brought to him…
It looks like Bush is set to push for more changes in the tax code, and he’s including some features that would make me a big fan if they stay in.
The biggest one will do much to solve the “health care crisis” – it will eliminate the deduction that businesses currently get for offering company health plans.
Why is this a good thing? Am I actually cheering a tax hike?
Not exactly. There’ll be lower individual as well as corporate tax rates, and the plan is supposed to be revenue-neutral overall. But having employers “provide” health plans is decidedly inferior to having the employees buy their own plans, which is what seems likely to take place if this tax break finally, at long last, goes away. The market for health insurance will work better if insurance companies are competing to please the actual policyholders, rather than their employers. The current practice of having everyone in a given company charged the same rate regardless of risk factors is a strong incentive for companies to practice age discrimination and reject less healthy people, and removes an incentive that individuals would otherwise have to take cost into account when consuming health care and to keep themselves healthy.
Other changes include elimination of double-taxation on corporate profits and an expansion of tax-free savings accounts, also eminently sensible moves.
With expanded Republican representation in Congress, this should all have an easier time passing. And it hasn’t been wise in the past to bet against Bush getting his way when he really pushes for something.
(Thanks to QandO for the link)
The right-wing socially conservative Bush Administration has ordered a sexually suggestive commercial off the air.
Our friends on the left will be up in arms any minute now about this latest infringement on the First Amendment rights we all hold so dear, right?
Right?