'You Didn't Build That' (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 04:32:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  'You Didn't Build That' (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 'You Didn't Build That'  (Read 7915 times)
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


« on: July 27, 2012, 12:00:17 AM »

I'm perplexed.  Maybe I'm always perplexed.  But, so far as the basic claim that government and markets are interdependent, I fail to see how that could strike anyone as controversial.  Governments need to guarantee property rights and enforce all kinds of laws pertaining to transactions in order for markets to remain viable, government tax funds make infrastructure available that helps businesses to start up and continue to function, governments often make available a veritable bonanza of tax deductions to businesses, governments support education that gives broad swaths of the populous various levels of skills enabling them to work, governments help to address problems of external costs, and on and on.  None of this negates the efforts of individuals who build businesses, risk for them, and sometimes succeed. It just points out that markets don't--and can't--arise in a political and legal vacuum.  Even considered on their own in the abstract, market production and transaction require massive amounts of cooperative effort.  To deny any of this is to subscribe to a myth of absolute individualism that flies in the face of everything we experience and everything we do.

Now, none of this constitutes an argument for the details of any particular tax policy.  One of the only things Eric Cantor (I completely despise this man) ever said that rang somewhat true of Obama is that the latter always tries to parlay a philosophical point--a point about values--into an argument justifying tax changes, when what he needs to offer are economic arguments.  Bill Clinton always made both value arguments and economic arguments, Obama almost always only makes the former and most of the time skips the latter.  Cantor charges that, when it comes to economics, Obama just doesn't "get it." Cantor may very well be right about that too.  Unfortunately, the only thing Cantor himself "gets" as far as I'm concerned is how to be an ass.

Anyway, back to the rest of my perplexities...I have lots of them, and they all keep me quite occupied. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.