Sunday, June 15, 2008
Bye Bye American Pie
Barack Obama has little understanding of economics. He believes, like most Marxists, that the economy is like a pie, and if I get a bigger piece, then you will get a smaller one. This is the reason he is so disdainful of the wealthy and successful: he believes they are taking more than their 'fair' share of the pie, consigning countless others to poverty. This is why he wants to raise taxes even if it results in a weaker economy and less revenue, because he thinks it is more fair. He doesn't understand that it is not a zero sum game, that wealth is not to be divided but created. If taxes on investments were eliminated, along with taxes on corporations, the economy would boom, the markets would soar, and millions would prosper. Those at the top as well as those on the bottom would benefit from a growing pie. It is this same misguided view that shapes Obama's energy policy. He has been quoted as saying that 'Americans can no longer set their thermostats at 72 and expect the world to say that's ok, use however much energy you want'. He thinks we are using more than our share of energy and are depriving the rest of the world. He wants us to do with less so others can have more, being too ignorant to realize that we can produce more energy so everyone has enough. If we build more nuclear plants, and utilize our vast coal and oil reserves (and stop worrying about non-issues like global warming), there will be more than enough energy for all of us. Or we can follow Obama's plan and get used to a lot smaller piece of the pie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

1 comment:
I generally agree that economics is not a zero-sum game and (although I don't see how the issue relates to this post) that we could solve most of our energy issues through increased use of nuclear, off-shore oil, coal, and increased efficiency.
HOWEVER, I'd like to see you support your assertion that removing taxes on investments and corporations would result in a booming economy. Has this been shown to be true over extended periods?
I also would be interested in seeing you support the notion that an economy rising due to increased tax benefits to investors (i.e the wealthy) will *reasonably* benefit other groups. One might argue that in a democracy, a government strategy that increases total wealth more, but with very poor distribution might be inferior to a strategy with a smaller total increase in wealth but with better distribution. Either way, I'd like to see the assertions supported by evidence.
Post a Comment