An interesting article about finding balance in our view of economics

Good read.

Balance in all things.

"moral norms" "social good" "good person" what do these terms really mean? Can they even exist when things we thought were written in our genetics at birth can be redefined on the whim of a person? If so, then is there any absolute truth to inform on "good" and "moral"? If not, then it is all a moving target and a definition of degrees.

406LIFE said:

"moral norms" "social good" "good person" what do these terms really mean? Can they even exist when things we thought were written in our genetics at birth can be redefined on the whim of a person? If so, then is there any absolute truth to inform on "good" and "moral"? If not, then it is all a moving target and a definition of degrees.

Click to expand...

Words vary with usage, context, time and shifting understanding - language is by definition a human construct. Every document in the world including our Constitution and the Bible can have words plucked out, put in quotes and subjected to the question, "what does this even mean?" I am proud be be a citizen of the greatest country on earth, formed by bold words in some of the greatest writings in history like, "inalienable rights", "life", "liberty", "pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal". What did those mean? Does it matter that at the time they were written that blacks were property, adult women had the legal rights of children, we had debtor prisons and only white adult male land owners could vote? Those words were obviously not universal or literally truthful - but even with their vague (and possibly hypocritical) nature they laid out a vision for a whole new form of governance. One that has been a moving target, growing and changing by degrees for over 200 years. And I think we are better for it, then and now.

I am more conservative than Mr. Brooks, but I do think this articles raises points worth discussing, worth understanding, worth considering - even if the edges are fuzzy. It is too easy to dismiss his writing (and all most all writings) along your rationale and I choose not to. YMMV.

If I could make $15,000,000 running a factory in Bozeman that provide good jobs to 600 citizens, should I be ashamed if I boarded it up, laid them all off and moved production to Thailand so I could make $15,000,001? In theory that would be the right economic choice - but I doubt any of us think that is "right". What about for $15,100,000 or $16,000,000 or $20,000,000? There are real world choices with real world social impact that are rarely black and white. While he and I would likely find different balance points, I agree with Brooks that in 2019 as we weigh these choices we have slipped too far to one side of the calculus. As others have said, life is balance. Not sure we are balanced. Balance requires indefinite and fuzzy discussion.

How is this about hunting? mtmuley

Pretty rich coming from a publisher that purports to be neutral.
Maybe they ought to look in the mirror

mtmuley said:

How is this about hunting? mtmuley

Click to expand...

It's not - anymore than posting about weekly music selections or random political cartoons. It was offered just as interesting food for thought. If you aren't interested no need to read or comment.

Tradewind said:

Pretty rich coming from a publisher that purports to be neutral.

Click to expand...

Do they even pretend anymore? Since the 2016 election I thought they finally stopped pretending. But I agree, pretending any publication or writer is somehow above bias is silly.

VikingsGuy said:

It's not - anymore than posting about weekly music selections or random political cartoons. It was offered just as interesting food for thought. If you aren't interested no need to read or comment.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of stuff I don't read on here anymore. mtmuley

A lot of pulpit activity imo.

The corporations and billionaires of today are saints compared to just about any time in recorded history.

Not saying they are perfect, plenty of examples of taking advantage of folks, but for the most part at least they aren't working folks to an early grave anymore.

Ever heard of the Robber Barons during the 1800's?

Random thoughts, don't read if not interested

Juxtapose the warn'ees and both sides of the economic/political spectrum is covered...

NoHarleyYet, where do you find all of these?

..this guy's blog

It’s an interesting read, but it circles back to where nearly all liberal views on business and economics end up: you are greedy for wanting to keep your own money that you made. I am moral and virtuous for wanting to take it from you and spend it elsewhere.

Don’t blame Apple for following the law and legally parking their money offshore. Blame the lawmakers of the nation with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the 1st World.

Cal Icahn is right. Fair is a fairytale. Thank God.

MTGomer said:

It’s an interesting read, but it circles back to where nearly all liberal views on business and economics end up: you are greedy for wanting to keep your own money that you made. I am moral and virtuous for wanting to take it from you and spend it elsewhere.

Don’t blame Apple for following the law and legally parking their money offshore. Blame the lawmakers of the nation with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the 1st World.

Cal Icahn is right. Fair is a fairytale. Thank God.

Click to expand...

In the simplest sense all people are greedy to some extent (and generous to some extent). I want to keep my money for my purposes, you want my money for you purposes - it is the human condition. Good governance balances human nature and conditions to allow for key elements of civilization to work. That’s why I tend to lean libertarian/conservative because I think those general philosophies tend to be better suited to dealing with the reality of the human condition rather than idealistic approach favored by the left. I think the soviet system proved that without personal stake in the game productivity plummets and everyone is impoverished. At the same time, the royal courts of Europe (or the oil rich governments of the Middle East) showed how excessive wealth in too small a group also leads to atrophy and civil disruption. A balance must be found. And I suggest that this balance is a little more nuanced than, mine is mine, get over it.

How much the producer keeps vs the source of capital vs the sovern get to take vary wildly over time and place. There is simply no absolute answers beyond reproach or discussion that solve the question of how much is yours and how much needs to be paid back for society to work. I think our taxes are too high, our government spends too much AND that the corporate government relationship has become too cozy and too favorable towards quarterly earnings. At the same time a culture that places quarterly market bumps above any social responsibility is not going to end well. I do feel at times that some corporate leaders run out of good and productive ideas to grow their company and go to the lay-off announcement well to easily to bump their stock short term.

I don’t have magic answers, but it is fair to say a clear majority of this country is not satisfied and it is not clear either of the traditional parties or their emerging left and right fringes have a clue. So we are going to have to work through it with all kinds of perspectives at hand - and I am happy to read views I disagree with as long as they make me think.

If I can make up a phrase to sum up my feelings on the matter I'd go with something like "personalized ethical socialism". I don't believe it's right to take money that one has earned and give it to someone else in general. However, I wish that people would make a personal decision to help those less fortunate than themselves without the push from someone else or some sort of law. I wish that people were generally kindhearted and able to recognize if/when they had more than enough to share. I wish the Jeff Bezos of the world would chose to stop making more money and instead pay their workers more. I wish everyone would donate to charities out of their excess (maybe even firstly just realize how much excess many of us have). I wish companies like Apple would take some of their cash and improve/fund an impoverished school system on occasion.

I guess overall I just generally wish that we would think of others a little more than ourselves and consider how we, personally, can make the world a better place for someone else. If we have a company maybe that means making a little less (if we can afford it) to pay our workers a little more or provide better benefits. Or if you're just a working guy/gal maybe that means donating to a local food bank regularly, or paying some bills for a friend going through a hard time, or cutting a check every month to a local, reputable, charity, etc.

MTGomer said:

It’s an interesting read, but it circles back to where nearly all liberal views on business and economics end up: you are greedy for wanting to keep your own money that you made. I am moral and virtuous for wanting to take it from you and spend it elsewhere.

Don’t blame Apple for following the law and legally parking their money offshore. Blame the lawmakers of the nation with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the 1st World.

Cal Icahn is right. Fair is a fairytale. Thank God.

Click to expand...

well said, Gomer

MTGomer said:

Cal Icahn is right. Fair is a fairytale. Thank God.

Click to expand...

My grandpa used to say, “fair is where pigs win ribbons”. I am not so fancy and I just tell my kids, “life’s not fair, move on”.