One thing my study of economics has taught me is that businesses will tend to act in whatever way they think will bring them the most profit. There may be rare exceptions, and of course businessmen often have mixed motives. But the overall tendency in this direction is very strong.
My guess is that if you surveyed people, many more self-described progressives would say that they agreed with the statement than self-described conservatives. Indeed, progressives often criticize conservatives and libertarians for being insufficiently attuned to the rapacious self-interest motivating businessmen.
Yet oddly enough, it seems to me that one of the main problems with progressive thought is that they don’t take the idea that businesses act to maximize profit seriously enough. For a group that claims to have a low opinion of businessmen, progressives have a strange habit of advocating policies that will only work on the supposition that businesses won’t act to maximize profit, and then react with shock when they proceed to do so.
For example, during an appearance on the Tonight Show during her 2008 presidential bid, Hillary Clinton told the following story about an encounter she had on the campaign trail:
I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he’s trying to tell me something—you know the crowd was yelling—so I leaned over and he said, “You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we’re not making any more money. Can you help her?”
Senator Clinton expressed shock at the heartlessness of business. But if one really believes that businesses act to maximize profits, then this is precisely the sort of behavior that one ought to expect from businesses when you raise the minimum wage. Not only should this reaction not be surprising, it ought to have been anticipated, and to the extent that actions like the above cancel out the benefit of increasing the minimum wage, this ought to have made progressives like eager to pass the wage hike in the first place. Instead, progressives advocate a policy on the ground that business rapacious, and then expects it not to react in a rapacious way.
The minimum wage is hardly the only case of this. Here, for example, is a story about the effect last year’s credit card reform bill was having on fees and interest rates:
As consumers look forward to new credit card rules intended to make their lives easier, many are also finding that the cost of using their cards is rising.
Efforts to compensate for the losses expected from the new federal credit card rules — some of which take effect Thursday — are part of what’s driving card companies to raise interest rates and fees, some say.
And here is another about insurance companies reacting to the recently passed health care bill:
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama’s statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we’ll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America’s employers would remain the backbone of the nation’s health care system.
In each case businesses behaved exactly as you would expect profit-maximizing entities to behave. Yet in each case progressives responded to the news like Peter Pan responding to Captain Hook’s underhandedness. No matter how often it happens, progressives are always dumbfounded when businesses do what progressives claim to believe they do: act in their own self-interest. If progressives would only be more consistent in their cynicism, their policy prescriptions might improve.
0 thoughts on “Progressives Are Not Cynical Enough About Business”
” If progressives would only be more consistent in their cynicism, their policy prescriptions might improve.”
Progressives who become more consistent in their cynicism become Marxists.
It is not a question of progressive’s being cynical enough, more like being clueless enough of how economic life actually works. Government always trumps private, Federal vs. local. They are extremely ideologically consistent in this. The law of unintended consequences is automatically ignored in staying true to this worldview.
Progressives who become more consistent in their cynicism become Marxists.
A more consistent cynicism might lead progressives to become Marxists, or it might make them into libertarians.
Whether it leads to marxism or libertarianism is unimportant. The Progressive movement is utopian, denies original sin, and Jesus Christ. It was condemned prior to Vatican II and Catholics can not be Progressives. Thought you’d like to know.
@Tim McCarthy
What you’re saying isn’t completely right. The Vatican always argues for a “balance” between pure capitalism and socialistic capitalism. I think, for instance, that they would’ve agreed with the raise of the minimum wage; even though some companies are now apperently cutting working hours, a large share of companies simply can’t so their poorest employees are earning more.
Sure, the idea that we can create a utopia with socialism is obviously not realistic and not in line with Catholic teachings, but I certaintly believe that a Catholic or christian government or business must protect their poorest employees or citizens. We can obviously not stop sin but caring for our brothers and sister is most definitely effective. Again I’m not saying people should adopt socialism, just that there should be some social elements in capitalism.
See for instance Rerum Novarum and the social teachings of the church.
Maybe you know all this and I just understood you wrong, I don’t mean to be patronizing (or socialist BTW), but at least others should know this.
Richard, you’re right on track. And we can all thank you for reminding us here of what the Church actually has to say about the matter as opposed to letting people like Glenn Beck define our terms for us. Actually, I don’t feel any strong desire to rehabilitate the term Progressive. I do want to point out, though, that when liberals or progressives or Democrats or whatever you want to call them decry the abuses of big business, it is actually an opportunity for conservative enablers of big business (through irresponsible deregulation) to wake up from THEIR doey eyed naivete.
Mark,
Here’s a list of the irresponsible (bank) deregulation since 1864.
1. National Bank Act of 1864 (Chapter 106, 13 STAT. 99). Established a national banking system and the chartering of national banks.
2. Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (P.L. 63-43, 38 STAT. 251, 12 USC 221). Established the Federal Reserve System as the central banking system of the U.S.
3. To Amend the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224). The McFadden Act of 1927. Prohibited interstate banking.
4. Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking.
5. Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.
6. Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-797, 64 STAT. 873). Revised and consolidated earlier FDIC legislation into one Act.
7. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133). Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company.
8. International Banking Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-369, 92 STAT. 607). Foreign banks in the federal regulatory framework. Deposit insurance for branches of foreign banks engaged in retail deposit taking in the U.S.
9. Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-630, 92 STAT. 3641). FIRIRCA. Created the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. Established limits and reporting requirements for bank insider transactions. Electronic fund transfers.
10. Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-221, 94 STAT. 132). Established “NOW Accounts.” Began the phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposits. Granted new powers to thrift institutions. Raised the deposit insurance ceiling to $100,000.
11. Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-320, 96 STAT. 1469). Garn-St Germain. Expanded FDIC powers to assist troubled banks. Net Worth Certificate program. Expanded the powers of thrift institutions.
12. Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-86, 101 STAT. 552). CEBA. Expedited funds availability. Recapitalized the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Company (FSLIC). Expanded FDIC authority for open bank assistance transactions, including bridge banks.
13. Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-73, 103 STAT. 183). FIRREA – restore public confidence in the savings and loan industry. Abolished the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), and the FDIC was given the responsibility of insuring the deposits of thrift institutions in its place. FDIC insurance fund created to cover thrifts was named the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF), while the fund covering banks was called the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF). Abolished the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Two new agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), were created to replace it. FIRREA created RTC as a temporary agency of the government. The RTC was given the responsibility of managing and disposing of the assets of failed institutions.
14. Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647, 104 STAT. 4789). Title XXV of the Crime Control Act, known as the Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990, greatly expanded the authority of Federal regulators to combat financial fraud.
15. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-242, 105 STAT. 2236). FDICIA greatly increased the powers and authority of the FDIC. Major provisions recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund and allowed the FDIC to strengthen the fund by borrowing from the Treasury. The act mandated a least-cost resolution method and prompt resolution approach to problem and failing banks and ordered the creation of a risk-based deposit insurance assessment scheme. Brokered deposits were restricted, as were the non-bank activities of insured state banks. FDICIA created new supervisory and regulatory examination standards and put forth new capital requirements for banks.
16. Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672). Established regulatory structure for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), combated money laundering, and provided regulatory relief to financial institutions.
17. RTC Completion Act (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369.
18. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-325, 108 STAT. 2160). Established a Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, a wholly owned government corporation that would provide financial and technical assistance to CDFIs.
19. Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338). Permits adequately capitalized and managed bank holding companies to acquire banks in any.
20. Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208, 110 STAT. 3009
21. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338) Repeals the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Allows national banks to underwrite municipal bonds. .
22. International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001* (P.L. 107-56) The law requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and imposes various standards on money-transmitting businesses.
23. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-204) Sarbanes-Oxley establishes the Public Company Oversight Board to regulate public accounting firms that audit publicly traded companies. It prohibits such firms from providing other services to such companies along with the audit. It requires that CEOs and CFOs certify the annual and quarterly reports of publicly traded companies. The Act authorizes, and in some cases requires, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issue rules governing audits.
24. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003* (P.L. 108-159)
25. Dodd/Frank – In 2,300 pages the culmination of all that preceeded.
My opinion of liberals/progressives tells they think businesses and Republicans will to act in whatever manner necessary to make Obama look bad.
For example, today the racists are selling off the NYSE just to cause people to think that Obama’s socialist agenda is not salutary. The villains!
I think you ought to read the documents. It still stands that Progressivism is utopian and as such denies original sin and by extension Jesus Christ. Their was never any teaching allowing socialistic capitalism. What is that ? Socialism and Communism and Progressivism are condemned. Subsidiarity is what is approved. The means of production owned by working men is approved. Re-distribution of wealth is condemned. Moreover what is socialistic capitalism ? Do you mean Distributism written about by Chesterton and Belloc ? Glenn Beck has nothing to do with me, I was taught by the Church prior to Vatican II in the 1950’s. The Church can not change it is until the end of this age, and no lib modernist influence has any place in the Church.
Humanistic ideal: “Man is the measure of all things and that our job is to make life worth living.”
“But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is ‘higher.’ The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all ‘radicals’ and ‘progressives’ from the mildest liberal . . . have in effect chosen Man.”
Orwell: “Reflections on Gandhi”
@Tim McCarthy Doesn’t subsidiarity imply a kind of involvement of the government in for instance health care? Helping society organise systems like that?
The most important goal of business is survival. If a business does not survive it can do no good or anything. The main goal of a progressive politician is to get elected; just like his or her conservative counterpart. Ergo, he or she will do or say whatever it takes to stay in office. Why state the obvious. Everybody knows that business people or politicians or bureaucrats driven by fear or lust for power or greed make poor choices that harm themselves and many others and then try to cover their tracks. On the other hand great leaders driven by Faith, Hope and Love make inspired choices that enrich themselves and the world at large. Let’s quit bemoaning human weakness and spread the One True Faith that will once again make a positive difference.
@ Richard. No it doesn’t. It means the decision should be taken as close to the action as possible. No Federal nothing unless it can not be resolved at the lowest level. For example parents decide what their children are taught not the Federal Government. But to the contrary the Federal Government should maintain interstate roads. They should regulate interstate trade, getting rid of obstacles for the free flow of commerce. There is no reason not that by applying subsidiarity and free market principles we couldn’t have better cheaper health insurance than what is currently going on. I’m not for turning back the clock, but if we took a look at how the laws were back then and adapted them to now we would be better off. On the one hand we have the party of death, and on the other the zionist neo-cons, and to paraphrase Fr. Malachi Martin when asked who he’d vote for Kerry or Bush he said he intended to be in St. Pats in NYC praying God would deliver us from both of those evils. Progressives are the enemies of the Church.
tim
Without the assistance of government, business is shackled by the consumer. If the consumer is vicious, the business will be vicious. If the consumer is virtuous, the business will be virtuous.
Government has a role; however, a vicious electorate will elect a vicious government and business will secure its authority through the power of the gun. Then there is no check on evil.
Progressives, especially well-intentioned progressives are dangerous and destructive.
Capitalists, as capitalism has come to be practiced are corporatists. They secure profits and eliminate competition with the power of the guns of government.
To think that modern capitalists and progressives are different is simply foolish – they are exactly the same. Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business – Chesterton.
A government of virtuous men will curtail our disordered appetites and leave the natural free market to serve. No one goes into business, in a genuinely free market, unless they think they have a way to serve others and their profit is the measure of the degree of success they achieve in serving others.
In a progressive corporatist capitalist construct only those with the lust for power will go into business and should anyone else manage to get in, they will be crushed by the corporate government.
Debating capitalism, socialism, progressivism, etc. in the current paradigm is a fools errand. The terms we are using are incorrect, the intentions are masked and the idea of Christian justice doesn’t enter into the equation.
Progressive aren’t cynical about business. Progressives are very much in favor of business provided they control consumer choices – no happy meals with toys, plenty of prescription drugs with deadly side effect, no guns in the hands of the common man, the right to murder a human being simply because of their current location – inside the womb or in the nursing home. They also want to control the businesses – no free market in insurance, managed pools of mandatory insurance instead, no parochial schools, plenty of government indoctrination centers.
This is the stuff of a ‘scientific dictatorship’, one in which the slaves enjoy their servitude. It is a technological feudal system – we are the serfs and the progressives are the lords. The first thing our lords must do is eliminate the only Lord we should have – His Name is Jesus Christ.
No King but Jesus Christ for me.
Psalm 146:3, “Put not your faith in princes . . . “
Someone help me out here – is there a reason the author of the article is not posted with the article – I have never seen a blog that doesn’t list the author. It is EXTREMELY annoying an unprofessional.
Jim, the author shows at the bottom of each post on the main page. The individual pages don’t for some reason (and I agree it’s unfortunate, but it’s not that big of a deal once you know where to look). Blackadder was the author of this post.
“It is EXTREMELY annoying an unprofessional.”
Professional? Jim, we are just a rag-tag bunch of unpaid volunteers! 🙂
As RL said you can see the authors on the main page for each post before clicking on the post. Alternatively, on the main page clicking on a contributor’s name will bring up all the posts of the contributor clicked on.
That businesses optimize is a useful assumption in constructing ideal types. I think you will find in practice that businesses satisfice rather than optimize.
In the case of wage and hour laws, rules on the terms on consumer credit, and the regime in health care finance, public policy imposed costs. Parties to economic transactions make adjustments which distribute the costs between workers, proprietors, and customers. Some of the politicos who imposed those costs did so with the assumption that proprietors would eat all the new costs.
It may be that these pols are insufficiently cynical. It may also be that they are ignorant or have not come to the realization that other people have their own agendas and their own fish to fry and are not merely characters in Henry Waxman’s doll house. I come from Upstate New York. We have twelve members of Congress. Perhaps four have some familiarity with business or economics from the occupations they have followed or from academic study. Ignorant would seem likely. The extent of narcissism would be harder to determine.
After reading this discussion I’m baffled by the republican party. They seem to get the vote of most serious christians (and rightly so, as they are against abortion), but they often seem very unchristian. Seen from Europe I get the impression that they are often a little xenophobic and very warlike. Also the ties politicians in the United States often have with the business world seems very unhealthy for a democracy.
Are these impressions just wrong? BTW the presidential candidates are obviously the most visible in Europe, so that’s most of all where I’m basing these conclusions on.
“Are these impressions just wrong?”
Yes.
““Are these impressions just wrong?”
Yes.”
OK
American Knight’s analysis is spot on. The question is how do we affect real Catholic change. The right are corporatists or zionist trotskyites ( Krystal and Strauss founders of neo con were trotskyites first)
The Dems are the party of death and it matters little which modifier you use; liberal, socialist, or progressive. My latest suggestion is to keep throwing the incumbents out until they listen to us.
We are to bring forth the Social Kingship of Christ, not play patty cake with evangelicals that think they are bringing the latter day rain.
I find it difficult to understand what this blog post has to do with Catholicism. Following the author’s logic, we should abolish minimum wage, indeed, all regulation of business, because it will affect prices. And it is of course not true that “progressives” are surprised by the reactions of (certain) businesses. If I may quote from your own comments’ policy:
“I will not exaggerate others’ beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)”
Perhaps a better title for this post would have been “Progressives Are Not Skeptical Enough Of Business.” You see, there’s a big difference between being skeptical and being cynical.
It’s OK to have a healthy skepticism of business, government, or even (up to a point) the Church. Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify” rule encapsulates that quite well. Blind and unquestioning faith in the fallen human beings who comprise any institution usually leads to trouble. Being prepared for the POSSIBILITY that one might be decieved, or that the other party has ulterior motives, doesn’t hurt.
However, that is not the same as cynicism — the attitude that automatically ASSUMES people or institutions to be stupid, evil, or corrupt until (or even if) proven otherwise, and never expects any better from them. Cynicism, like flippancy (an attitude that automatically treats everything as a joke) dulls the intellect instead of sharpening it, and if unchecked turns into a cancerous contempt for others that is extremely toxic to one’s spirtual life.
“Seen from Europe I get the impression that (the Republican party) are often xenophobic and very warlike… Are these impressions just wrong?”
What you are seeing, Richard, is a focus on the most extreme elements of the conservative movement/Republican Party. Every movement or political faction has its “fringe” elements, which don’t represent the majority of people involved, but which unfortunately tend to attract most of the media attention. I’m sure the same thing happens in your country.
In fact, we in America probably get an equally simplistic, stereotyped or distorted view from OUR media of what’s happening in Europe and elsewhere in the world. It’s just the nature of the news media to do that. I hope that answers your question.
America is large and not Europe, though our politicos wish it were and work to change it into it. Look at the stats when this country was strong and wealthy after the last war we did not export but 5% of GDP. We made all kinds of things and now we do not. This is key to prosperity we make things to create wealth we do not take in other’s laundry that’s called service. It is parasitic. This is part of the reason for this crisis we have more parasites than are healthy for a political organism. We must rid the
body of these parasitic diseases and promote healthy activities like small businesses, while getting rid of the terminal diseases like the Federal Reserve and fractional banking, the IRS, reduce the Federal Government to about 10% of it’s current size. Well you get the idea. We need to stop supporting Europe and pull all of our Nato troops and war machines out. Let the Russians take over. The EU has put obstacles in the way of American free trade in Europe so have a nice day, we are out of there. We can do it alone just like we did in the past and be the wealthiest country on the globe. The US is fighting a proxy war for the EU, or the Mohammedans would have taken over the Continent due to their physical superiority to the fighting forces in the EU. Remember France it was on TV and the French police looked like little skinny girls and could not control the Mohammedans. Fortress America with Catholic Ghettos are what we need again.
Tim,
I agree on many of your points especially the Fed and fractional-reserve banking (usury); however, I would not call service oriented businesses parasitic. All businesses serve, some provide and intangible benefit, some provide manufactured goods, some facilitate (service). All are legitimate; however, we do need to get back to having a manufacturing base, not because there is something wrong with service, but because wealth is created by mixing man’s labor (with the intent on sanctification) with God’s creation for His glory.
In truth the USA barely needs to import anything and we should be exporting our massive surplus to help the world and enculturate the world to freedom.
As for letting the Russians take over – I am not cool with that at all. I do think we need to stop our imperial military and have the biggest baddest military around, but not send them anywhere without a firm purpose for defeating an enemy – utterly defeating an enemy. Our military should not be the policeman of the EU, we should not be nation-building and we should most certainly not be using our soldiers within the borders of the USA (on the borders – I am all for that). That being said, we cannot create a vacuum because the Russians, the Muslims and the Chinese will fill it – we can’t have that.
We have no surplus to export. We don’t make anything any more. Agri-business has killed vegetable farming we export corn syrup, soy oil, corn oil, etc. We need to import everything, we need food, we need clothes, we need tv’s nothing is made here any more.
The service industries like accounting are now counted as part of the GNP thanks to Billy Clinton. Accountants do not make anything they count what has been done. This is perverse. It adds no wealth. Service business are a cost of manufacturing which produces wealth. They do not create wealth they suck it out of the economy, but they are clean jobs for college educated clerks.
The most important thing is this the Chastisement which Our Lady explained at Fatima has not been fulfilled and Russia has not been consecrated. This chastisement which is coming will be worse than the Deluge.
We have protected Europe it is time they grew up. If they can protect themselves Russia will not take over but I’m betting on Russia, because EU is effeminate
@tim mccarthy Russian is Orthodox now, and the EU atheist, so, it’d be an improvement.
Tim,
Most accountants are progressives because they earn their livelihood as a result of burdensome government regulation and graduated income tax scheme. However, their are some services that are useful. Retail is one of those. Most people purchase the goods we used to manufacture through service retailers. Financial services professionals are usually progressives too because they tend to favor the evil Fed and corporatism. Some actually help people make smart decision about the stewardship of their wealth, sadly those are few and far between.
Not having a manufacturing base is part of the globalization plan to erode the sovereignty of the United States of America. The intent is to kill the shining city on the mountain and it eventually will happen, but it does not have to be now.
The kings of the earth who had intercourse with her in their wantonness will weep and mourn over her when they see the smoke of her pyre.
They will keep their distance for fear of the torment inflicted on her, and they will say: “Alas, alas, great city, Babylon, mighty city. In one hour your judgment has come.”
The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn for her, because there will be no more markets 5 for their cargo:
their cargo of gold, silver, precious stones, and pearls; fine linen, purple silk, and scarlet cloth; fragrant wood of every kind, all articles of ivory and all articles of the most expensive wood, bronze, iron, and marble;
cinnamon, spice, 6 incense, myrrh, and frankincense; wine, olive oil, fine flour, and wheat; cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human beings.
“The fruit you craved has left you. All your luxury and splendor are gone, never again will one find them.”
The merchants who deal in these goods, who grew rich from her, will keep their distance for fear of the torment inflicted on her. Weeping and mourning,
they cry out: “Alas, alas, great city, wearing fine linen, purple and scarlet, adorned (in) gold, precious stones, and pearls.
In one hour this great wealth has been ruined.” Every captain of a ship, every traveler at sea, sailors, and seafaring merchants stood at a distance
and cried out when they saw the smoke of her pyre, “What city could compare with the great city?”
They threw dust on their heads and cried out, weeping and mourning: “Alas, alas, great city, in which all who had ships at sea grew rich from her wealth. In one hour she has been ruined.
Rejoice over her, heaven, you holy ones, apostles, and prophets. For God has judged your case against her.” – Apoc 18:10-20
The lunacy on this blog is beyond belief. Certainly beyond catholic belief.
Why thank you for your kind remark Professor Simons. I am sure you are used to an ideological spectrum at Dartmouth that goes from far left to lunatic left, so I can understand your distress at being exposed to uncongenial currents of thought.
I understand the importance of having a strong manufacturing, and for that matter an agricultural, base to the economy — i.e. making, selling, and buying stuff — but since when are service jobs now classified as being bad and unnecessary? Doesn’t this imply that the ONLY “real” economic wealth or value lies in material goods? Aren’t knowledge, independence, skill, and just plain enjoyment of life economic goods as well?
Service jobs are simply doing for others what they do not have the time, ability, or inclination to do for themselves — thereby freeing them to devote their time to do the things they CAN do, or want to do. When this comes about as a result of genuine demand — and isn’t artificially forced on people through excessive government regulation or other causes — how is that bad? And finally, isn’t the notion that real wealth only lies in “things” and not in serving others basically un-Christian?
Spot on Elaine. Although material wealth is measured only by the things produced, so in that sense service isn’t wealth; however, some services enhance wealth. Education and apprenticeship for example, without those how will most people have any idea how to create material wealth?
As for the true wealth – we know that can’t be measured.
Look where your treasure is, for there your heart will be also.
Simons,
Care to elaborate? Levying an attack like that without any substance, hmm? When did that stop being beyond Catholic belief?
You may have a little something in your eye.
We have no surplus to export. We don’t make anything any more.
This is a myth, albeit a widespread one. America’s manufacturing output is actually much much higher now than in previous decades.
What trips people up is that while the U.S. is making more stuff than ever before, we’ve gotten so efficient at doing it that it takes fewer people than before, so manufacturing employment has declined even as output has risen (the same is true, btw, for agriculture).
Bravo BA! That is a simple fact, but one that seems to elude most people.
I was a Manufacturing Engineer for thirty five years. I worked start-ups and turnarounds I am the wrong guy to try to bamboozle. This idea that we make as much now as then is another Progressive piece of bent truth. The dollars as a number have remained the same but our share of the industry as a percentage has diminished. I saw it, I fought against it. A single aside in the Chicago Metro Area when I started we had 1200 job shops there. We now have less than 100. These companies were forced out of business by the progressive force of ISO conformance to the EU. The regs were intended to put America out of business. Nafta sent the rest of the jobs to China and India. It is all about how little they pay them, it has nothing to do with anything but that.
What you really need to do is stop getting you info from the liberal news, watch fox news, but not the talking heads like Hannity etc, they are apostate Catholics which endorse contraception.
This idea that we make as much now as then is another Progressive piece of bent truth. The dollars as a number have remained the same but our share of the industry as a percentage has diminished. I saw it, I fought against it. A single aside in the Chicago Metro Area when I started we had 1200 job shops there. We now have less than 100.
I’m not saying that the U.S. makes as much now as in the past. It makes more. That’s just a fact, as the chart I linked to illustrates.
It’s true that as a percentage of the world total, U.S. manufacturing output has declined in recent decades. But it doesn’t follow from this that U.S. manufacturing output has declined. Suppose, for example, that total manufacturing output worldwide doubles while America’s share of output falls from 20% to 15%. Our share of industry as a percentage would diminish, but we would still be making more stuff and before. This is basically what has happened (though the numbers are just for purposes of the example).
Likewise, as I noted previously, a decline in manufacturing employment doesn’t imply a decline in manufacturing output. Indeed, one of the reasons manufacturing employment has fallen is that the manufacturing sector has become so productive that they can produce lots more stuff with fewer people.
Today’s Sunday I’m taking a day of rest.
A single aside in the Chicago Metro Area when I started we had 1200 job shops there. We now have less than 100. These companies were forced out of business by the progressive force of ISO conformance to the EU.
In addition to Blackadder’s point, which is undeniable, it’s worth noting that the upper midwest does not the entire US make (although in regards to manufacturing they’re used to thinking so.) The amount of manufacturing employment in the South and in Texas has increased over the last couple decades, even as the Great Lakes states have seen decreases in manufacturing employment (though not necessarily output.)