You've got one theory that says if we slash our education, our research and our infrastructure budgets, and weaken our social safety net, and make sure that unions aren’t out there operating, and we essentially eliminate EPA -- and I'm not exaggerating -- there are candidates and members of Congress who've called for that -- that somehow we're going to be able to win this competition in the 21st century. And that's one vision, and it is being starkly stated.
And I have a different vision. Most of the people in this room have a fundamentally different vision about how this country was formed. Our vision is based on the notion that everybody deserves a fair shot, everybody has to do their fair share, and everybody has got to play by the same set of rules and America succeeds best when we're all in it together, we're all rising together. And that big, inclusive, generous, bold, ambitious vision of America is what's at stake, is what we're fighting for.
So I agree he's got one thing right here, it is a about a bold ambitious vision for America. Let's put aside the first paragraph, let's just assume he's got that all correct. Now remember this comes from a speech about jobs the economy, how to make America competitive, yadda, yadda, yadda. What I don't understand is how the whole "fair shot" - we are all in it together thing, leads to jobs, economic recovery, and being competitive. And how does that lead to "rising together". I would like someone to explain that to me. Because in my little pee brain, that sort of thing amounts to two things. It's either get the people who have too much and give to those who don't, or punish the people that have too much if they don't somehow help to make things more fair. But fairness has nothing to do with being competitive, in fact in a competition things are not fair at all. There are winners; there are losers. Sure there's fairness (or at least should be) in terms of the rules, but not in outcomes.
There just seems to be a complete lack of focus on the problem, or a basic understanding of the economy. Economics is about managing a finite set of resources with an infinite set of wants. What often gets overlooked is that this doesn't equate to a single pot of money. Because when you fuse raw materials, with labor, and innovation you can create wealth. Someone can always find a way to make something better, faster, cheaper, than was done before, or they can solve a brand new problem, and that process creates wealth. So its a complete fallacy that there is this single pot of wealth that needs to be distributed. Likewise, anyone involved in building things better, faster, cheaper, or inventing will probably have a disproportionate amount of wealth because of their involvement in producing it than those who lost the game. Hence the unfairness of it all.
Now in America we've done some winning, and we want to do some more winning. How has that always worked? Let's see you need problems, folks to fix them, and capital to pay the folks to fix them. There's no shortage of problems, there seems to be lots of people needing work, no shortage there, hmm, what's missing... oh right money. So how to you get money, well you can just start printing, but eventually that leads to inflation. Even if you print it, if you don't have anyone to loan it to, that's not really going to help, been there done that. You could encourage those that have it to start spending it. Now there's an idea. Hmm, who has money. Well, rich people have money. People overseas have money too, and wait if folks from elsewhere bring money here, doesn't that mean we have more money here, yep I think it does mean that. Who else has money? Well normal folks would have a lot more money if they weren't paying so much in taxes. Why are they paying so much in taxes? Well to pay for all the fairness programs and the size of government.
So you see all that cut government, entitlements, unions, EPA talk is really about reducing the burden on America innovation and capital so that it can be put back to work. And hopefully attracting foreign capital at the same time. That to me sounds much more like a solution for creating jobs than preaching about being fair. I sorta have a feeling that "fair" is the new "hope and change".
Government can't do that much when it comes to this stuff, mostly it just needs to get out of the way. Attempting to throw resources here or there hoping something hits is just a big waste of time and money. What you want is lots of really driven folks trying out all sorts of great ideas with motivation. How do you do that? By leaving the motivation and incentive structures in place. That will bring capital into this country, inspire and motivate people. Out of that wealth is created. There's a reason that the last couple of hundred of years dwarf any other period of history before this in terms of innovation and development. It's because the power of man to carve out his own future was unleashed. Before the Enlightenment, man's history was largely that of oppression, slavery, or barbarianism. Property ownership and the pursuit of happiness are the cornerstones of our advancement. Someone else telling you how to be happy or taking your property from you (even in with the best of intentions) is a step in the wrong direction.
So I agree with Obama the vision for America is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment