Here is an email from a conservative cousin:
Here is the actual url http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
Check it out… Give me your feedback..
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:35 PM
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:35 PM
To:
Subject: good reading
*******,
If you have a chance I urge you to get the February 2, 2013 edition of The Economist. There
is an extensive section on Scandinavian governments and economies. I
know you look to Sweden and Norway as glowing examples of socialism and
these articles have interesting perspectives.
and here is my answer:
Dear %%%%%%%
Well I got the note from you to @#@#@# about the Nordic countries. I read the article, but it was nothing
new or strange. I guess that you object to the government policies
in those countries because you perceive them as limiting freedoms or
expensive, therefore tax increasing. That is good. You have
wonderful reasons I will not try to argue against them. I really do
not know enough about economics or the countries to make any good
arguments about it. I will take advantage of the request for
comments to offer a 'liberal' alternative to 'conservative' notions
of social problems.
I would like to posit the notion that
conservatives are avaricious and are unwilling to help those who need
help through government institutions. There is a lot of good reason
for this, especially that they worked hard to acquire the wealth, so
they should have it to enjoy. I do not have a problem with those who
work for producing and developing products, it is the wealth
management side of it I find objectionable. The investors who just
move money from one place to another, stocks to currency to metal to
etc., wherever the return is best. That, of itself, is not
unreasonable and may be necessary for our economic stability, but so
much is just avariciousness without limit. I am wondering why they
can not share more? Why should they pay taxes at the rate we pay?
I am not saying they should pay until they are as poor as the rest of
us, but what would it mean to them to live on ten (10) million
instead of, say, twenty-five (25) million? It would seem to me that
our government may waste a lot of money, they at least try to provide
for the general positive welfare of all of us, like roads, hospitals,
schools, food banks, etc., It must also be noted that while the
government does lose money to welfare queens and kings, they lose
money to contractors as well (witness the war in Iraq where billions
were lost to bad accounting and Congress does not do anything about
it or Medicare fraud....sad). We humans come from a long line of
hunters, especially the males, who were basically in competition with
the prey for survival. That lives on today in games (basketball,
football, chess,etc.)and money or power hoarding. In our
civilization today we have learned to cooperate so that all may live
better. We all struggle to improve and our government does too. I
applaud Congress and the President for all they do. Many of those
individuals are just trying to do the best for everyone, whether you
agree with the political choices they make is irrelevant, they are
trying to do good. Taxes support those efforts, so those who can
afford more should be willing to pay more for the greater good of
all.
I read a science fiction book recently
where the hero went on a trip. He made sure to mention that when he
got home and the trip was a success, he would pay for all the expense
he was putting whoever to. He just did not understand that the
government or society or whoever was footing the bill thought it was
worthy of the expense or that it was expected that the reason was
good, so the money was well spent. It sort of reminded me of the
Mennonites whose communal living arrangement begat very successful
farmers wherever they happen to settle. The magic is the cooperation
they give each other for the greater good. It is this cooperation
that has made for the general growth and development of our
civilization. I believe is what our civilization and economic
superiority has been based on: I do this you do that, farmers grow
food, miners dig up ore, dressmakers make dresses, etc. We all pay a
bit towards the benefit of the store, who pay a bit to the benefit of
the truckers and suppliers, and on and on. We have developed a way
of cooperating so that everyone gets what they need and there are
enough products to be had, though, to be sure, we can only buy what
we can afford and that is a function of our productivity in the
workplace. But this all leaves us still trying to balance what we
can produce with the fact that we do not need everyone producing.
I suppose that you would not feel that
those who can not find jobs, should just be allowed to starve, as Mr
Scrooge, suggested, fewer mouths to feed and all that. But there is
the unemployment of so many who have been displaced by technology.
The first noticeable occurrence of this was the Great Depression.
Good, hard working folks were without any means of sustenance so they
were selling apples on street corners. The government did create
some jobs by hiring unemployed to build things around the country:
CCC. But that was paid for with borrowed money starting us on the
slippery slope of borrowing to pay for the solutions to our problems.
Now we have Unemployment Compensation Insurance, but I am sure that
there are many who just can not find work because there is none, and
I have heard talkers who bemoan the fact of the uncounted because
they have chosen to be or been kicked off the dole. You may blame
the economy or the President or anything else, but the fact remains,
and has even been parodied in cartoons, that technology has replaced
many who would otherwise have a job to do.
Comments
Post a Comment