Comments on: The True Meaning of Thanksgiving: Private Enterprise in America http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-true-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-birth-of-private-enterprise-in-america/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Darrell Stoddard http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-true-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-birth-of-private-enterprise-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-14558 Darrell Stoddard Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:27:59 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5919#comment-14558 Fifty years ago in China under the state collective farms, 30 million people were starving to death. The government planners believed that by mechanizing and standardizing the peasants and the farms, they could produce an abundance. After all, educated specialists in government knew more about efficiency and farming than the ignorant peasants. The Commune System of farming was a total failure. Millions still starved. Today there is more than enough food in China to feed the starving masses. Was this accomplished by better regimentation, better planning and better farm machinery? The answer is NO!!! It was ever so simple. They broke up the collective farms and gave the land back to the peasants, making each peasant free to realize the fruits of their own labor. Fifty years ago in China under the state collective farms, 30 million people were starving to death. The government planners believed that by mechanizing and standardizing the peasants and the farms, they could produce an abundance. After all, educated specialists in government knew more about efficiency and farming than the ignorant peasants. The Commune System of farming was a total failure. Millions still starved.

Today there is more than enough food in China to feed the starving masses. Was this accomplished by better regimentation, better planning and better farm machinery? The answer is NO!!! It was ever so simple. They broke up the collective farms and gave the land back to the peasants, making each peasant free to realize the fruits of their own labor.

]]> By: Chris http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-true-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-birth-of-private-enterprise-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-3471 Chris Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:34:55 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5919#comment-3471 Sabin, Despite your excellent reply, you do not understand. The manner in which the free market determines salaries (for example) is not fair. Why do engineers with 1o years of experience make $100,000 per year when waitresses make far less? Aren't both contributing to society in their own way? It's not fair for one group of workers to make more than another group of equally earnest group of workers. Since most engineers work for those greedy, fat-cat corporations (thus, setting the pay level for all engineers wherever they work), that probably explains most of the discrepancy in pay. (Note: above thoughts are highly scarcastic.). In capitalism versus collectivism, it's people who work and produce versus people who let others do all the work for them. Today, it's capitalism versus "regulated" capitalism. It's people who work and highly paid versus people who work but are not highly paid because of low skills, overseas competion, immigrant labor, etc. Listen, a good portion of the electorate want to believe they have been shafted by somebody or something. No one wants to hear that they are a failure. So, they blame the messanger (i.e., capitalism), instead of the message (which they themselves created). So, here comes Obama, who promises to take a little more from one group of highly productive workers (who are supposedly inordinately paid) and sprinkle it around to those who have been shafted by our unfair means of compensating workers. Finally, how often have you heard that we wouldn't be in this financial mess if people just paid their monthly mortgages (or never refinanced at a higher level to pay for a new kitchen)? Probably zero. Again, no one wants to go on record telling people that they are losers. Saying the system is unfair is a lot easier. Sabin,

Despite your excellent reply, you do not understand. The manner in which the free market determines salaries (for example) is not fair. Why do engineers with 1o years of experience make $100,000 per year when waitresses make far less? Aren’t both contributing to society in their own way? It’s not fair for one group of workers to make more than another group of equally earnest group of workers. Since most engineers work for those greedy, fat-cat corporations (thus, setting the pay level for all engineers wherever they work), that probably explains most of the discrepancy in pay. (Note: above thoughts are highly scarcastic.).

In capitalism versus collectivism, it’s people who work and produce versus people who let others do all the work for them. Today, it’s capitalism versus “regulated” capitalism. It’s people who work and highly paid versus people who work but are not highly paid because of low skills, overseas competion, immigrant labor, etc. Listen, a good portion of the electorate want to believe they have been shafted by somebody or something. No one wants to hear that they are a failure. So, they blame the messanger (i.e., capitalism), instead of the message (which they themselves created).

So, here comes Obama, who promises to take a little more from one group of highly productive workers (who are supposedly inordinately paid) and sprinkle it around to those who have been shafted by our unfair means of compensating workers.

Finally, how often have you heard that we wouldn’t be in this financial mess if people just paid their monthly mortgages (or never refinanced at a higher level to pay for a new kitchen)? Probably zero. Again, no one wants to go on record telling people that they are losers. Saying the system is unfair is a lot easier.

]]> By: Sabin Colton http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-true-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-birth-of-private-enterprise-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-3469 Sabin Colton Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:51:11 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5919#comment-3469 The idea of fair is another politically correct idea - sounds good, but there is evil beneath. The assumption, unspoken, is that society oppresses and specifically denies some (they assume a lot) a chance to get ahead. But, if you look at the lower classes and look even closer at the dynamics over time, you will find a surprisingly large turnover from down there as people move up and out. That's the American model and ideal - moving on up. The politicians would rather have us believe that the lower classes are stagnant and denied opportunity. Add to this the misleading idea that people should expect to have jobs be provided for them. It is not the government's job to create jobs. It might be their job to create a healthy free enterprise environment - good security from outside powers and truly fair laws for free trade and entreprenureship. We have to be proactive for ourselves, go out and find jobs and be willing to work. There are two closely related ethnic groups, to go un-named here, that have two vastly different approaches to jobs. One group immigrates to the US and settles where their relatives are and then complain that there are no jobs, and want handouts and benefits. The other group immigrates and disperses to where the jobs are. The money sent from this latter group to relatives in the old country actually represents a fair fraction of the old country's GNP! The idea of really being fair would be to really prevent discrimination, as we try to do today, and evenly apply the law. The rest is up to the individual. Just like everything else in a free country, we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we also have every right to not do so, to fail. We have a right to healthcare, if we seek to buy it, but we also have the right not to seek it and to be ill, if that is our gig. To use the idea of "fair" to mean giving freebees to people who do not motivate themselves to go out and work is not fair to anybody. You not only take the honest earnings of the workers but you undermine the need of the not working people to seek work at all. No one wins, unless, of course, the goal is to create a society dependent on the state for services and support = a nanny state in which the government runs virtually everything. In not a few cases, the need to buy healthcare has been the motivation for a couple, who could squeak by on a little or on one income, to go out and get a second job and then live well as the second job brings in more than enough for healthcare. What has been forgotten by more than one recent generation is that before the 1950s prosperity, most families were two income households and one income families were not the norm. The single income family of the 1950s was a nice model for that time, but it was not realistic in the long run. Unfortunately, many hang on to this unrealistic, historically unusual, model. Europe, fast approaching a nanny state, is so full of regulations now that you need a license to go sailing. The idea of fair is another politically correct idea – sounds good, but there is evil beneath. The assumption, unspoken, is that society oppresses and specifically denies some (they assume a lot) a chance to get ahead. But, if you look at the lower classes and look even closer at the dynamics over time, you will find a surprisingly large turnover from down there as people move up and out. That’s the American model and ideal – moving on up. The politicians would rather have us believe that the lower classes are stagnant and denied opportunity. Add to this the misleading idea that people should expect to have jobs be provided for them. It is not the government’s job to create jobs. It might be their job to create a healthy free enterprise environment – good security from outside powers and truly fair laws for free trade and entreprenureship.

We have to be proactive for ourselves, go out and find jobs and be willing to work. There are two closely related ethnic groups, to go un-named here, that have two vastly different approaches to jobs. One group immigrates to the US and settles where their relatives are and then complain that there are no jobs, and want handouts and benefits. The other group immigrates and disperses to where the jobs are. The money sent from this latter group to relatives in the old country actually represents a fair fraction of the old country’s GNP!

The idea of really being fair would be to really prevent discrimination, as we try to do today, and evenly apply the law. The rest is up to the individual. Just like everything else in a free country, we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we also have every right to not do so, to fail. We have a right to healthcare, if we seek to buy it, but we also have the right not to seek it and to be ill, if that is our gig.

To use the idea of “fair” to mean giving freebees to people who do not motivate themselves to go out and work is not fair to anybody. You not only take the honest earnings of the workers but you undermine the need of the not working people to seek work at all. No one wins, unless, of course, the goal is to create a society dependent on the state for services and support = a nanny state in which the government runs virtually everything.

In not a few cases, the need to buy healthcare has been the motivation for a couple, who could squeak by on a little or on one income, to go out and get a second job and then live well as the second job brings in more than enough for healthcare.

What has been forgotten by more than one recent generation is that before the 1950s prosperity, most families were two income households and one income families were not the norm. The single income family of the 1950s was a nice model for that time, but it was not realistic in the long run. Unfortunately, many hang on to this unrealistic, historically unusual, model.

Europe, fast approaching a nanny state, is so full of regulations now that you need a license to go sailing.

]]> By: Chris http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-true-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-birth-of-private-enterprise-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-3440 Chris Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:00:33 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5919#comment-3440 Great article. But you ignored the main counter-argument of today made by Obama and other liberals. It is not about collectivism, but about fairness, i.e., income needs to be redistributed to those who have not received a fair chance in today's competitive world. It's kind of like spreading points around to inferior teams (i.e., it's only fair). The fairness argument lies on top of the social safety net argument (the rational behind social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, chip, etc.). Thus, an additional lever for c0ntinual expansion of government spending. This works politically since how do you define fair? Great article. But you ignored the main counter-argument of today made by Obama and other liberals. It is not about collectivism, but about fairness, i.e., income needs to be redistributed to those who have not received a fair chance in today’s competitive world. It’s kind of like spreading points around to inferior teams (i.e., it’s only fair). The fairness argument lies on top of the social safety net argument (the rational behind social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, chip, etc.). Thus, an additional lever for c0ntinual expansion of government spending. This works politically since how do you define fair?

]]>