Capital-correctness

More and more I realize that most anti-capitalists on the Left are not so much anti-capitalist but they are against the wrong kind of capitalist. Joseph Shumpeter wrote about Marx's association of class and capitalism -- the capitalist is always the expropriator and then there's the worker associated with labor. It's a class distinction rather than taking capitalism objectively.

All the comments I've seen so far from the left regarding Ariana Huffington's 315 million dollar payday from AOL praises her worthiness for such a huge sum, and I've never heard anyone on the Left refer to Soros as a Fat Cat, or John Kerry as a greedy capitalist pig. It matters on the Left who has or made the money, and if the correct person is rich then it's not associated with capitalist greed. However, the Koch brothers, or Glenn Beck's salary are different issues -- they become self-interested capitalist players concerned only with their own enrichment and not with the plight of the needy.

Obama's new-found business-friendly posture has this same capital-correctness attached to it. Capitalism is fine if the right capitalists make the money, fulfill their duty to society and the State and build the right products or provide the right services. Even Obama has become wealthy, but no one is accusing him of exploitation -- however, if Ann Coulter writes a book that is successful in the market, she's making a killing off fear-mongering and pushing red-meat to extemist Tea Party-types.

I find this fascinating.

Update on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 01:57PM by M. Farmer

Whoops, I did find one un-happy ant-capitalist who disses Huffington.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten-column-huffington-aol-20110209,0,7406565.column

Going after the rich

Jeffrey Sachs was on Morning Joe this morning arguing with George Pataki that millionairesandbillionaires (it's become one word now) are running around avoiding taxes, spending their money in any way they choose, and that the government should 'go after them' and take it away. Sachs is always built up to be a brilliant thinker -- Scarborough and others referred to him as a brainiac.

Pataki tried to explain to Sachs that mills&bills pay most of the taxes and that many will shift investments if you try to soak them. This shifting of investments to avoid government confiscation is usually non-productive -- and when government 'goes after' too much wealth, it backfires and revenues do not increase -- there are usually negative economic consequences hurting those without wealth in the process. Sachs could not understand any of this, or he refused to admit he understands -- Sachs insisted that government should take much more money from the rich, period.

I believe that Sachs is a smart man, just like they say. So, why is it that a smart man can't understand a simple reality? I believe he understands completely what Pataki was saying. What Sachs is doing is building a case to take more extreme measures to redistribute wealth. Sachs is clearly stating his philosophy -- government should prevent 'excessive' private wealth, and all 'excess' wealth should be confiscated by government and redistributed for social justice efforts. Sachs is involved in social justice/poverty work and gets funding from George Soros, or has in the past -- I'm sure he believes the confiscated wealth would be put to better use under his guidance, or people like him, rather than allowing those who made the wealth to spend it as they wish.

What kind of world is Sachs promoting? Yes, I believe Sachs is a smart man, but he is not a wise man. Dr. Sachs' intelligence is limited by hatred of private wealth and a failure to grasp free market principles. Even if it could be shown to Dr. Sachs that a free market, private charity direction would be more beneficial to his anti-poverty efforts, he would still complain about wealth inequality and demand that 'excess' wealth be confiscated by government. His argument with Pataki proved that this morning -- not once did Dr Sachs show any sign that he's open to a different way to achieve his goals. Dr Sachs' anger at the rich has caused him to become blind to innovative, realistic solutions to poverty -- he can only see a pile of money made by the rich and  determne that government should take a lot of it and give it to the poor. Wll, I'm sure it's not that simple, but I doubt Dr Sachs is searching for every possible solution to poverty, or he would be more curious about and open to a free market.

Pataki brought up the unintended consequences of redistribution of wealth -- mainly the fact that money will flee to safer environs -- but Sachs was having none of it, because what Sachs has in mind is something more restrictive which doesn't allow the wealth of the richest in the US to escape. It's the only explanation, because being a smart man he has to see that the way things are now, just simply taxing higher won't work. Dr. Sachs is signaling what is ahead for us in a progressive world -- it will be ruthless towards those who create wealth.

NPR's intolerance is showing -- Juan Williams fired for Muslim remarks

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-oreilly-appearance/

Not to long ago, Julian Sanchez posted an article about the "episemic closure" on the right. At the time I commented on Sanchez's site that the left is just as guilty, but I was met with resistance as everyone made the point that the right is extremely guilty. I still maintain the left is as closed, or moreso presently. The left has a closed mindset and they are protecting it from penetrating ideas which are contrary to these beliefs. I compared it the other day to political religion.

It's odd that one day after Soros announced a war against Fox, Williams, who is associated with Fox, is fired. Is this the beginning of a campaign to silence dissent?