Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Thomas Sowell on Central Planning 2

"More usually, there is an assumption that some especially prescient third parties can determine which special occupations really meet society's needs and therefore should be subsidized through compulsory extractions from the taxpayers. Such arbitrary choices, made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong, are considered to be either economically or morally superior to choices made by people who pay their own money for what they want and thereby determine which products, industries, and occupations will be remunerated to what extent."............Man, do I ever love the way that this fellow writes; the way that he mixes logic, dispassion, and derision so masterfully. Here's to hoping that even a fraction of it can penetrate those calloused skulls of the progressives on the left.

15 comments:

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Will: Here's to hoping that even a fraction of it can penetrate those calloused skulls of the progressives on the left.

Because insulting someone who disagrees with you is the best way to get them to see the "truth"?

Thomas Sowell is a stooge for the plutocrats. I'd be embarrassed to quote him... but he's your guy if you worship the wealthy.

dmarks said...

Sowell is no stooge, and as for plutocrats, he usually does want less power for those who rule.

In fact, in this quoted article, Sowell is criticizing the ruling elites meddling in our affairs. Chances are these ruling elites are wealthy, which makes them plutocrats according to the actual definition. So he is anti-plutocrat.

Will doesn't worship the wealthy. There's a middle ground, of course between worshipping the wealthy (which no one here does) and consistently slandering those who work hard and earn a lot of money as a result as "plutocrats" whether or not they rule, and demanding that they hand out their hard earned money to jealous people who demand it.

Your meaningless use of the word "plutocrat" is always an attempt to dumb down the conversation.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

dmarks dumbs down the conversation by inventing new meanings for words.

dmarks: Sowell is criticizing the ruling elites meddling in our affairs.

He's criticizing "we the people" asserting their right to manage the economy so it works to the benefit of all... not just the plutocrats.

dmarks: ...demanding that they hand out their hard earned money to jealous people who demand it.

Nobody is demanding this. You're imagining it.

dmarks said...

You are confusing the ruling elites with "we the people".

When I refer to the people, I refer to each of us controlling our lives.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

You're confusing our elected representatives with "ruling elites".

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

When you refer to "the people", you're referring to the plutocrats controlling our lives.

Les Carpenter said...

wd, is Sowell a stooge because he his views don't align with yours or your world view?

By the way, would calling a educated and well spoken man a stooge be considered a insult? Just curious about that.

dmarks said...

Our elected representatives are indeed ruling elites by definition. And outside of a totalitarian state, they have no business controlling our private lives.

"When you refer to "the people", you're referring to the plutocrats controlling our lives."

No, I am referring to the rights of the average citizen to make decisions for himself, herself, or his or her family.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

"Rational" Nation: wd, is Sowell a stooge because his views don't align with yours or your world view?

Does Will believe those on the Left have "calloused skulls" just because the worldview of those on the Left don't align with his own?

"Rational" Nation: would calling a educated and well spoken man a stooge be considered a insult? Just curious about that.

I didn't mean it as a compliment.

dmarks: Our elected representatives are indeed ruling elites by definition.

Only by your definition are our elected representatives "ruling elites".

dmarks: ...outside of a totalitarian state, they have no business controlling our private lives.

Nobody is suggesting they should, except Republicans who want to control our bedrooms and women's wombs.

dmarks: No, I am referring to the rights of the average citizen to make decisions for himself, herself, or his or her family.

Trade is something that is negotiated between nations. When you imagine the average citizen can trade with other countries you're buying into a delusion put forth by the plutocrats who want to make these decisions... and are fooling you into letting them do so.

dmarks said...

"When you imagine the average citizen can trade with other countries you're buying into a delusion put forth by the plutocrats who want to make these decisions"

No "imagination" necessary. I order directly from individuals in other countries all the time. So much your claim claim of "delusion".

dmarks said...

WD said: "Only by your definition are our elected representatives "ruling elites"."

Time for some fact checking:

Ruler: "A person exercising government or dominion."

Elite: "A group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth."

That fits Congress and the Presidency for sure. I'd be lying NOT to refer to them as the ruling elites.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Time for some fact checking...

Elected: chosen by vote, as for an office.

Representative: a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body...

This fits Congress and the Presidency for sure. You'd be lying NOT to refer to them as our elected representatives.

dmarks: I order directly from individuals in other countries all the time. So much your claim of "delusion".

I've done that too (and have never been charged a tax), but that isn't trade. Trade is when corporations import goods for sale in the US.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man, wd (you don't have to completely agree with people to learn from them)....And who in the hell do you think that these frigging 3rd parties should be, these arbiters of fairness, compassion, and insight? You? Paul Krugman? Ed Schultz? A bunch of undersecretaries to the undersecretaries to the undersecretaries? My God, man, don't be so afraid of freedom.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

I'm afraid of what you consider freedom. It's like what dmarks considers "free speech". Those with the most money have the most speech and the most freedom.

We don't need arbiters, we need economic policies that will drive us toward greater equality.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Equality doesn't just happen, wd. Sometimes it takes years of education, ingenuity, and a shitload of 80 hour work weeks. And, come on, give me some credit for that negative income tax proposal that our good 'ole buddy (well, at least he's my buddy), Rusty's been eviscerating me over.