The Slav's Baseball Blog - BASEBALL 24-7-365
The Slav's Blog about anything relating to the great game of baseball
- and other less important issues from outside the diamond.
The best baseball blog that you have never heard of.
Pages
▼
Thursday, April 18, 2013
RIP: Margaret Thatcher - On socialism and the misunderstanding of "income inequality" (pay attention OWS'ers)
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
This 2-minute exchange ( and the Acton blog entry posted below ) explains why the current administration would not send a representative to her funeral. They are deathly afraid that she would expose them for the frauds they are even from the grave. It's all for the best, they are still working feverishly here at proving that their brand of "trickle-up" economics somehow works better than "trickle-down".
Say what you will about "Reaganomics" or "trickle-down" theory, it turned around a much worse economic condition -- the one Reagan inherited from Carter, Nixon and the Great Society spend-thrift and true racist Lyndon Johnson -- than this administration inherited and it did it much faster and more convincingly. The proof is that Reagan was re-elected by a "true landslide" proportion, winning forty-nine states to his opponents one and winning by a larger margin than 51% - 49%. It was closer to 60/40.
It also led to the eventual demise of the Soviets, the end of the Cold War ( and "duck and cover" ), the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the longest period of economic expansion that did not result result from fighting in and recovering from a World War. We got a heck of a lot more for our deficit spending back in the 80's, that's for sure.
The "income inequality" picture has become worse under the Obama administration than under Bush according to most economists that I've read. I'm sure we can pass the blame off on somebody else or some circumstance or another -- the perma mind-set of the leftists entitlement culture, that of a victim. Wasn't me. He / she did it. The culture did it. The devil made me do it. Pass the blame and pass the buck.
Thatcher and Reagan "got it". And that's why the leftists dislike both of them. Even after both are dead and buried. Because they left an example and a legacy that exposes their virulent B.S. for what it IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE. And that's VIRULENT B.S. Keep trying to re-brand socialism and marxism. You can change the label or the pitch-man on a package of B.S. It's still B.S.
This current crop of pretenders to the throne ( Clinton, both Bushes and Obama) have merely squandered it. As well as the "peace dividend" that they ( meaning Clinton and Daddy Bush, the original RINO ) inherited from Reagan.
He could have at least sent Hillary and told her "that's how a 'real' woman" leads a country and had some fun with it. But noooooooo!!. Classless to the bitter end.
RIP Margaret Thatcher. A giant among world leaders. She will go down in history as doing more for her country than this president can ever dream of having done for his. And that probably doesn't sit well with the President. So maybe it is best if he just stayed home.
The Incredibly Small and Ever-Shrinking President of the United States
He would no doubt look even smaller by comparison next to Maragaret Thatcher, even if she is dead.
Margaret Thatcher once told an interviewer, “Of course, I am obstinate in defending our liberties and our law. That is why I carry a big handbag.” During her time as Prime Minister, Thatcher’s handbag became an iconic symbol of her ability to handle opponents. The term “handbagging” even entered the Oxford English Dictionary (the verb “to handbag” is defined as: (of a woman politician), treat (a person, idea etc) ruthlessly or insensitively) to describe her rhetorical style.
Thatcher’s handbagging usually occurred during Question Time, the hour every day when members of the parliament ask questions of government ministers—including the prime minister—which they are obliged to answer. A prime example is in her last appearance as Prime Minister in the House of Commons, on November 22, 1990. Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes taunts her on the subject of income inequality.
Mr. Hughes: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not challenged, and that is that, during her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. in this country has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.
The Prime Minister: People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.
Mr. Hughes: No.
The Prime Minister: Yes, it came out. The hon. Member did not intend it to, but it did.
As Thatcher might say, those concerned with income inequality many not intend for it to come out, but making the rich less rich is precisely what they want—indeed, it is the only thing that can solve the faux-problem of income inequality.
Consider the example given by Mr. Hughes that, “the gap between the richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent has widened substantially.” To simply the math, let’s say the bottom 10 percent in a country make between $0 and $10,000 a year while the richest 10 percent make an annual income of $100,000. That’s a minimum gap of $90,000 dollars.
Now imagine if the incomes doubled over a period of 10 years (and inflation stayed low). The poorest 10 percent would now make between $0 to $20,000 and the poorest would make $200,000. Everyone would appear to be better off yet income inequality also doubled. The gap is now $180,000—twice as much as it was a decade ago.
So is this a problem? It would only be a concern under three conditions: (a) if the income of the rich increased at the expense of the poor (through exploitation or injustice), (b) the increase was due to illegal activity, or (c) if you care about income inequality because you want to make the rich less rich, through confiscation or redistribution of income.
Preventing or correcting Condition B is a primary concern of the State while preventing or correcting Condition A is a primary economic concern of individual Christians. There are numerous Biblical injunctions and warnings against the injustice of allowing the rich to exploit the poor. But if that is not occurring, then Christians have no right to be concerned with how much income another person is generating. Jesus even told a parable about workers making different wages for the same work (Matthew 20:1-16). While the purpose of the parable was to teach us about the Kingdom of God rather than a managerial lesson on income parity, it does show that differences of income—even for the same work— is not inherently unfair.
Thatcher intuitively understood what her opponents were loathe to admit: They were less concerned about the plight of the poor than with the wealth of the rich. Even the liberal British expatriate Andrew Sullivan admits this was true of British liberals and socialists:
No culture I know of is more brutally unkind to its public figures, hateful toward anyone with a degree of success or money, or more willing to ascribe an individual’s achievements to something other than their own ability. The Britain I grew up with was, in this specific sense, profoundly leftist in the worst sense. It was cheap and greedy and yet hostile to anyone with initiative, self-esteem, and the ability to make money.
The clip below captures the left-liberal sentiment of the time perfectly. Yes: the British left would prefer to keep everyone poorer if it meant preventing a few getting richer. Envy, even when is it disguised as egalitarianism, is a deadly sin. It is corrosive to the soul to envy the wealth of one’s neighbor and destructive to society when we desire the State use it’s power to redistribute the wealth of citizens simply to achieve the goal of more equalized incomes. Ms. Thatcher understood that concerns about income inequality were really about envy. She knew envy was consuming her opponents across the aisle, even though they couldn’t see what was hiding in their own hearts. We need to follow her example and expose income inequality for what it is, before it consumes our own nation as it did Great Britain.
“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society – from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.” (Speech, 1984)
“My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.” (The News of the World, 9/20/81)
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.” (Women’s Own magazine, 10/31/87)
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” (This Week, 2/5/76)
“As Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 I had the opportunity to put these convictions into effect in economic policy. We intended policy in the 1980s to be directed towards fundamentally different goals from those of most of the post-war ear. We believed that since jobs (in a free society) did not depend on government but upon satisfying customers, there was no point in setting targets for ‘full’ employment. Instead, government should create the right framework of sound money, low taxes, light regulation and flexible markets (including labour markets) to allow prosperity and employment to grow.” (The Path To Power)
“Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.” (Sunday Times, 5/1/81)
No comments:
Post a Comment