• Notes From Dave
  • my thoughts on some of the tough issues of short-term missions
  • God's Politics
  • jim wallis' smart, political, and God centered take on the issues of today
  • Progressive Eruptions
  • the liberal side of politics from shaw kenawe. a daily read of mine.
  • Conservatism With Heart
  • a conservative take on life and politics from a well connected missouri mom
  • Truthdig
  • left of center, and very informative. bob scheer's online journal
  • Coffee Klatch
  • home of the best coffee roaster in So. Cal. and where i learned to love coffee
  • The Coffee Geek
  • everything you need to know about coffee and how to make a great cup o' joe
  • Bleacher Report
  • varied sports blog, lots of attitude, and sometimes i'm a featured writer
  • Aubievegas
  • a mix of sports in general with a bent towards vegas and auburn
My Photo
Name:
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

I am a self proclaimed coffee addict and Executive Director of a non profit missions agency working primarily in the Mexican cities of Oaxaca, Guadalajara, and Ensenada. I've been married for over 30 years to Chelle, and we have one grown son, Joseph, a graduate of Auburn University in Alabama.

Powered by Blogger

Monday, March 02, 2009

An Interesting Question

Here is a great question posed by columnist E.J. Dionne today in his posting "Redistributionist, and That's Just Fine."

Do you believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy?

Now before all you worriers about socialism get worked up, Dionne points out that the proposed increases in government spending under President Obama will represent less than 2% of our economy.

If you are the commenting type, answer the question first, and then flail away.

Comments on "An Interesting Question"

 

Blogger dmarks said ... (10:37 AM) : 

To me, the biggest problem with restribution is those that take the money to redistribute line their own pockets first, and then let crumbs go to the intended receivers.

Time and again, I've seen situations where social service agencies of government at all levels have to deal with budget cuts. Instead of cutting generous pay and benefits, they cut services first. It's easy to tell where their priorities lie.

As for "fairer", should the people decide what is fair, or the government?

As for socialism, socialism always involves the rulers appropriating power (usually economic) at the expense of the people. Government agencies that enrich themselves while claiming to be helping people probably count.

It would be refreshing to see some redistributionist programs that "cut out the middle man" and get rid of the problem of the first mission to be to make rich bureaucrats and public "servants" richer.

 

Anonymous mike miller said ... (9:41 AM) : 

Is the economy sick or is it the greed of a few who have made it sick? If everyone had to play by the same credit and spending rules I am sure we would not be in this mess. What do we hear today? It's a great time to buy (foreclosed homes, depressed stocks, low priced merchandise)! Even in a down economy we are pushing greed and materialism. I guess obscene profits drive our economy and we expect it. This theme is not new. Watch the old film "Three Days of the Condor" and you'll see how the global economy and expectations of a material world play out. Someone always wants more. It's what drives most of mankind.

 

Blogger Dave Miller said ... (10:24 AM) : 

Nice points Mike. I wonder how all of this fits in with learning to be content, as it is taught in the bible.

The American way is to always want and seek more.

 

Blogger Patrick M said ... (3:32 PM) : 

First the question: It depends on how you define "fair."

In capitalism, fair is based on the value of a good or service. So if everyone is getting the fair value for their goods services (including labor), then the answer is absolutely YES!!!

However, as it comes from a column touting redistribution, I'm assuming he has someone in mind who will decide what is "a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty" than what would occur naturally. That's not capitalism, and that bounty ceases to exist when it is consumed by the redistributing entity.

So the answer is NO.

 

Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (4:15 PM) : 

Define 'trickle down ' economics:
"To me, the biggest problem with restribution is those that take the money to redistribute line their own pockets first, and then let crumbs go to the intended receivers."

 

Blogger dmarks said ... (2:30 AM) : 

I never thought of it that way, that government programs epitomize the worst outcome possible of "trickle-down".

 

Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (11:18 AM) : 

Any outcome of 'trickle down' is poor. At its best, the economic practice gradually reduces the customer base..recession is sure to follow.

 

post a comment