A good read from Ann Salmond, anthropologist and author weighing into the debate on inequality in the NZ Herald yesterday.
The international rating agencies have done all New Zealanders a favour. The double downgrade of the country’s credit rating makes it clear that the policies and philosophies promoted by successive governments are not working.
The “invisible hand” of the market, first conceived in the Enlightenment but coupled at that time with notions of justice, human dignity and “the rights of man”, has failed to deliver prosperity and happiness, in New Zealand as elsewhere.
The problem, it seems, is a loss of balance. In the pursuit of profit, everything in the world – the earth itself, other species, knowledge and indeed, other people – has been turned into a “resource” to be exploited, often without care or conscience.
In the process, ideas of justice, truth and the common good have been undermined. Without these bulwarks, democracy falters, capitalism fails to share wealth and the distribution of income shifts dangerously out of kilter.
Since the 1990s, income inequality in New Zealand has soared. In the midst of successive financial crises, the hand of the market still harvests wealth for the wealthy. While the richest avoid taxation, billions can be found to shore up the corporate sector, but not to deal with child poverty, third-world diseases, high rates of youth incarceration and suicide, and other indicators of suffering and failure.
The philosophies that persuaded many Kiwis to betray their own best values are bankrupt, and our future is at risk. A nation that does not care for its children has a death wish. A society that destroys the environment that sustains it will fail.
She questions why people support policies that are not in their own interests, or of future generations.
Some suggest this is because the middle 40 per cent of income earners aspires to join the top 10 per cent and does not want the bottom 50 per cent to displace them. This may help to explain the rise in consumerism and household debt, but it is only part of the story.
People also have to be persuaded that there is no alternative to the policies that beset them, or that external factors are to blame, or the likely impacts on their lives are misrepresented. Here, the freedom of the press is vital. If the independence of the media is compromised, the flow of information is in danger and independent voices are silenced. The press becomes a tool in the politics of diversion, with stories about celebrities and scandals displacing reporting on serious issues.
Even in economic life, when collective values collapse, failure is likely. In New Zealand, recent research indicates that arrogant, greedy and unilateral styles of management result in loss of productivity and profits, as good employees leave for other businesses or countries.
Salmond concludes by saying that more than a change of government is needed. What is needed in New Zealand is a change of heart.
Good stuff.
The dominant narrative of the last few decades of competitive individualism seems to be slowly changing. The Wall Street protest highlighting inequality and injustice is only a month old yet is now in 1000 cities worldwide, including in several NZ centres. Even the conservative Dominion Post this morning has two articles about the issues (local and international). Instead of feeling isolated and marginalised people are now connecting. Who knows where this will go, and how fast, but it can’t be worse than the road to increasing inequality which is where we were heading.
So Eric Watson and Bill Gates earn more than me: big deal. Doesn’t mean their lives are any better than mine; I have the money to buy everything I need, and both these gentlemen and I squeeze through the toothpaste tube at the same rate and that’ll be the case no matter how much more they earn. All of our standards of living are unrecognisable to past generations thanks to the industrial revolution and the innovation and wealth creation of free markets. But to do what the you are wanting to do, Darien, regulating and destroying free markets and forcibly taking the earnings these men have generated through risk taking and entrepreneurship to give to me in an effort to ‘even us all up’, just takes all of our freedoms away completely, and puts us living in the jail of Nanny State, our pursuit of happiness gone.
It’s all about morality.
The philosophy of economics relies on perfect information without regard for transaction costs. The problem with New Zealand society is that we have an economy where so much of it is dominated by politicians who play quid pro quo with the business elite. Worst of all, we condone it.
Look at how many richlisters have got where they are through political favours, insider information and milking the system. All these parasites suck the life out of the poor taxpayer and ratepayer.
If we improve transparency in financial markets and government activities and stop creating business welfare dependency our economy might not be such a joke. Right now, the only people benefiting from thi s government are their mates.
When I were a lad we were told that with Automation in industry we would all get more leisure time as there would be less work for the average worker to do. This would be achieved by job sharing and a shorter working week. We were all told that the wealth generated by machines would allow even the poorest people the necessities of life, no more hunger or ill health through a bad environment. We were told that all the dirty jobs would be done by robots and….
Well it didn’t quite work out that way did it. We were not told that to benefit from the new age of machines that we would have to be shareholders in multinational corporations, we were not told that those same multinationals would wield more power than any nation on the planet, we were not told that we would become “surplus to requirements” in the eyes of those lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time to have a slice of the pie.
We were lied to and that sux.
A change is gonna come, the greedy have had their day and paybacks are a bitch.
Look out National, your time is up.
So, Steve, you see no benefits from machines?
Does this mean, for example:
In a 30 story building you take the stairs, rather than the elevator?
You light the charcoal on the bench top to cook your toast rather than use the toaster?
You cycle everywhere rather than use one of those infernal things with and internal combustion engine?
In fact, wait a minute, haven’t you used a machine to just put your last post up and communicate with the world? I hope it wasn’t one made by that mega-wealthy bloke from Apple or the one at Microsoft …
Perhaps you should rethink that line you’re taking. Your life has been made much better by the machines these capitalists have made. It’s not just about profits …
We are constantly told we are lazy and should work harder at the same time families have both parents at work while the kids go to school without breakfast through lack of food.
From/ http://www.anxietyculture.com/workhell.htm
The future of work as previously predicted
• In the late 1700s, Benjamin Franklin predicted we’d soon work a 4-hour week.
• George Bernard Shaw predicted we’d work a 2-hour day by 2000.
• In 1933, the US Senate passed a bill for an official 30-hour work week. (President Roosevelt killed it.)
• In 1935, W.K. Kellogg introduced a scheme to cut 2 hours from the working day, yet pay the same wages. It was cost-effective – morale and productivity rose; accident and insurance rates fell.
• In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted a 4-day work week in the “not too distant future”.
• In 1965, a US Senate subcommittee predicted a 22-hour work week by 1985, 14 hours by 2000.
• In the 1960s, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just 5% of the work being done would satisfy our food, clothing and shelter needs.
• In 1981, Buckminster Fuller claimed that 70% of US jobs were unnecessary: “inspectors of inspectors, reunderwriters of insurance reinsurers, Obnoxico promoters, spies and counterspies…”
Myth: “People enjoy their jobs”
In 2001, the UK government announced plans for a “work first” culture. Ministers spoke of how work “holds communities together” and “gives life meaning”. Meanwhile, back in the real world…
• In 2002, the Work Foundation reported that “job satisfaction has plummeted”, and that so-called “high performance” management techniques made workers deeply unhappy and failed to raise output.
Myth: “We have more leisure now”
• The UK government has admitted a “sharp increase” in excessive working hours. DTI research found that 1 in 6 employees now work more than 60 hours a week.
Full-time employees in the UK work the longest hours in Europe. The average for full-timers in the UK is 43.5 hours per week. In France it’s 38.2 and in Germany 39.9, yet both are more productive than the UK.
Myth: “Hard work never harmed anyone”
• People with stressful jobs are twice as likely to die from heart disease, according to a 2002 study in the British Medical Journal.
Myth: “Work cures poverty”
• The number of people in work is at “record levels” according to the UK government. Meanwhile, official UK figures show 22% of people living in poverty, compared to 13% in 1979.
47% of employees have wages that, on their own, are insufficient to avoid poverty.
See how Tribesman moves the goalposts: Its all about taking all the Billionaires money ??? The billionaires paying their proportion of tax would be all thats required.
Under the current system of global financial flows thats all but impossible.
Steve, none of that post answers to my post of 12.22pm.
Steve you weren’t lied to. You dont own the means of production so why should you enjoy uts fruits? For you labour you get paid, for yout capital you earn interest. For YOUR attitude im not suprised you feel aggrieved the world passed you by
@ steve barnes re “families have both parents at work while the kids go to school without breakfast through lack of food.”
Only because of choices. Sometimes because of circumstances absolutely beyond their control, but mostly because of choices.
I’m reading Freakenomics
Steve Barnes – Regarding working hours if we take the US as an example in the 1800s Americans were often working 70 hour weeks. At the turn of the last century 60 hour weeks. Today it’s under 40. Productivity gains have led to shorter working hours.
The economic growth that has been brought about by capitalism and the industrial revolution have meant we have seen an immense rise in living standards, increased life expectancy, the raising of the mass of people out of grinding poverty. It has meant that we have banished famine and starvation, once all too common occurrences even in the west, from most of the earth. Nothing is comparable in all human history to the last few centuries of capitalism. Yet from Darien we get anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Economic liberalisation within nations like China and India and trade liberalisation between nations has in recent decades led to rapid declines in poverty globally and increasing equality globally. From 1970 to 2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the Middle East, and 20% in Africa.
Economic freedom correlates positively with per capita income, the income level of the poorest 10%, women’s income, human development, and leads to reductions in poverty.
Give that why does Darien wish to drag this country in the opposite direction?
I can do no better than to quote Christopher Hitchens who was once a marxist and still considers himself of the “left”.
As always with this sort of thing, sweeping comments are made which many on this site take verbatim as truth. It would be interesting to know from Ms Salmond where her facts come from with regard to “the richest avoid taxation”, which is untrue.
I do not believe at all that NZ is “A nation that does not care for its children”. I would counter that by saying that most NZ’rs do care for their children, but are not overly fussed on paying for the care of the children of others, who have shown no personal responsibility when bringing those children into being. Sure, it’s not the kids fault (yes, I can hear the dull roar of you do-gooders coming), but something has to give. Take for eg, Mr Goff’s poster girl, Sosefina Masoe, who draws the minimum wage, yet managed to have 8 children. Children that she cannot afford to bring up (even with the vast sums of WFF credits she undoubtably receives).
As always with this sort of writing, it gives the left something to chew on for a while.
@ IVV I would say our country is one where “most NZ’rs do care for their children, but are not overly fussed on paying for the care of the children of others, who have shown no personal responsibility when bringing those children into being” AND “A nation that does not care for its children”
Inequality & child abuse are almost synonymous yet while everyone is always so happy to talk about the money side of things, no one really wants to talk about the 20,000 children that are abused, neglected and maltreated every day. To discuss the later is to discuss the BIG stuff, the uncomfortable stuff, the non PC stuff.
The only way any solution will ever be reached will be to go beyond the sticky plaster of the Welfare State and look for why people are so dependent on welfare.
Part of this is looking at why the cost of living skyrocketed, why the average house was worth 6 times the average wage by 2008, why real wages & taxes did not validate the struggle for young couples like my husband and I to the house & kids…..while paying exorbitant rents.
Hindsight is a beautiful thing – at the time I thought the former Labour govt had it made. I really did. Ironically I was a huge fan of WFF. But then I grew up and realised hang on, it is really HARD to get ahead and when you DO, you end up paying a huge amount of tax, on top of student loans & trying to buy your first home, have kids before your eggs dried up etc.
This realisation came with tough choices, then after a lot of hard work – continual hard work & sacrifice, we got there.
To really address inequality any govt needs to address child abuse. The two go hand in hand.
The link for The Herald article is incorrect.
We have spent $180 billion on welfare in the last decade and what do we have to show for it?
Nothing it has simply all been consumed.
Think of the valuable assets the government could have purchased with a sum that large, things that would have created a far more productive society.
Bill Gates wealth is largely based on an intervention by the State ie the internet, later improved by a scientist who gave it away for free.
The idea that all innovation is driven by the market is rubbish and if you look closely at most world changing inventions/technologies you probably find collective free thought/actions central to most of them.
Simply individuals don’t create wealth, they harvest it and get rich, wealth is created by our collective actions. How equitably that is distributed across society and our collective well being is the measure of the success of society not how many billionaires we have. As a country we have forgotten that in the pursuit of personal riches.
Controlling wealth and being rich equals power and over the last two decades we have seen those with power manipulate democracy to increase their personal wealth. This has happened at the expense of not only children elderly and other vulnerable in our community; but all of us.
Interesting comment Richie!
@ Richie – bollicks. Massive generalisation at best.
Tell that to Richard Branson & NZ entrepreneurs like Neil Graham, Phillip Mills….it wasn’t luck & good fortune it was imagination, sacrifice & hard work that made these men rich.
You prove to me that the bulk of rich people – including the Hedge fund guys & the currency traders/speculators who have not earned their wealth through imagination, sacrifice & hard work – work that often mean 70-80hour weeks on average & I might just believe you.
Salmond’s point that ‘(t)he philosophies that persuaded many Kiwis to betray their own best values are bankrupt’, is no better illustrated than in many of the comments here. Take for one that wee apologist “Tribeless’. Gallantly defending the ‘risk taking and entrepreneurship’ of Eric Watson and Bill Gates, men who are perfectly able to defend themselves, seems creepy to me. I’m certain that they too would find the unfailing support of Tribeless sycophantic. Unfortunately for Tribeless and others, the state that we are in, brought about by thirty years of relentless weakening of the state apparatus by neo-con desires to return to laissez faire capitalism, is much bigger than their minds appear to be able to encompass. It might be ‘all about morality Tribeless, but I certainly can’t subscribe to yours.
To paraphrase Churchill;never before has so much been taken from so many by so few.
Neoconservatism in New Zealand? I suppose Bush’s neocon desires drove him to increase spending more than any of the six president’s who preceded him, (including non-defense spending) to add $5 trillion to the national debt, and massively increase federal funding for education through ‘No Child Left Behind’ which predictably failed.
Instead of Salmond accusing people of ‘betraying their own best values’ perhaps she consider that we think those values are best served differently. Perhaps she should engage in substantive means and ends debate. In which she would engage in the empirical evidence regarding economic freedom and human flourishing as I have tried to do above. Rather than simply a narrative with little to substantiate it.
Steve re: working hours in UK average working hours in the have decreased over time. See http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/overworked-britons-leisurely-continentals
Someone Else – Regarding economics and perfect information that is simple a false assertion. Where do get such an idea from?
@Rebecca
What do you actually know about ‘hedge fund guys’.
- Your comments suggest not alot.
This actually a point in I agree with Salmond. However, I think she should apply a little logic to the situation. If it is indeed true that arrogant and unilateral styles of management result in a loss of productivity and profitably than those firms will be less competitive in the marketplace. Hence the answer is not less competition, but more. A lowering of state erected barriers to entry would make it easier for new businesses to form and compete with incumbents. But I somehow doubt that Salmond would support deregulation in this context.
Rebecca – It’s certainly not unusual for investment bankers and traders to work 70-80 hours a week. I thought the long hours they work was common knowledge.
QtR –
Neoconservatism in New Zealand? I suppose Bush’s neocon desires drove him to increase spending more than any of the six president’s who preceded him, (including non-defense spending) to add $5 trillion to the national debt….
I agree this is a bit of a strange statement. What we have in NZ is probably more akin to paleoconservatism.
However, in the accepted parlance, Bush and his flunkies were ‘Neocon’ (don’t know why they weren’t just labelled Reaganites) and they directed government spending quite deliberately along ideological lines (faith based etc.) to enrich their backers and acolytes – not that this is any different from any other regime in the States just maybe on a larger scale than normal.
As a great salve to Salmond, you need to read this from the Rational Capitalist:
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2011/10/ows-dogs-chasing-cars.html
Indeed, given the seeming inability of the Labour MP’s here to actually debate their header posts through the comment sections, the following quotation from this article sums up my thoughts on RedAlert at the moment, and the always underlying brutality of Left politics:
The inability and unwillingness for the left to argue critically for its agenda is a recurring theme that I have blogged about for years. Clearly, a sheer unanimity of angst exists among them related to perceived societal injustices, yet the vaguest sense of cause and effect, context, or solutions does not. The corollary is that they rarely understand or even acknowledge the implications of their own positions. For example, socialism necessitates the initiation of force against innocent people – that is the point of the redistribution of wealth and the abrogation of property rights. However, most will become angry, switch topics or even deny the reality of that logic to the point of denying the facts of history.
The left chooses not to acknowledge or clarify their demands because it brings into focus the actual political policies necessary to achieve them. And why would that be bad? Because, at root, socialism necessitates the violent transfer of wealth from one group to another group, a rather frightening position to explicitly advocate. Such a program is not only highly impractical, since it leads to stagnation, poverty and misery, but is profoundly immoral as it treats the productive as slaves authorizing the state to perpetrate acts of escalating violence against innocent individuals who want to own the products of their labor. …
@ MrV – a heck of a lot more than you! Referring casually to an occupation is in no way indicative of a lack of knowledge of that occupation…
@ QtR – clearly it is not common knowledge or else why would people continue to think that those who earn the big dollars somehow get to that level of wealth through luck and “harvesting of wealth” that would appear to accumulate through magic.
Wealth is by and large created by ordinary people making extraordinary sacrifices to do extraordinary things. Sacrifices which very few people are prepared to make.
An average of 60 hours is not uncommon in our household and this translates into a high income. Could we go further, earn more? Yes but we are not prepared to make the sacrifice – longer hours, more time away from family due to having to commute to different parts of the country etc.
Life is always about choices and inequality by and large reflects those choices.
Oh, and read and follow the links in Raven’s posts. That Bird’s a real education (and Raven you’re a hive of great links for my favourites).
Always great to find some I learn from …
I should add that conversely, we could also choose to change jobs, work less hours and earn less. Or we could change things so that we become a 2 income family, earn HEAPS more & probably pay less tax as it would be split a little more evenly between the two of us. But we would have to sacrifice even more family time. Any way you look at it we would always be self-sufficient. We weighed up our options before we went down the marriage/mortgage/babies road. Don’t see why everyone else can’t do the same
@ Rebecca
entrepreneurs like Neil Graham, Phillip Mills…..
Actually Phillip Mills was luck and good fortune. His Dad (Les) and Mum (Colleen) did a fine job of giving him the lifestyle for which he became accustomed. Phillip has worked with the family Business since oh since I can remember and way before I worked there. We are talking years and years and years ago.
Jus’ sayin’
Political labels can be very indistinct. However, I think it is quite a stretch to claim what we have in NZ is more akin to paleoconservatism (along with neoconservatism both seem distinctly American to me). Religion plays very little role in our politics and maybe I’m not familiar with them but it appears to me that traditionalism (most especially Tradition with a capital T) and belief in a transcendental order are not particularly central to those who would be considered “conservative” within the mainstream of New Zealand politics.
thanks for that steve, interesting read
@Rebecca
Your comments seem to indicate that ‘hedge fund’ guys like Jim Chanos, David Einhorn, Bill Ackman, aren’t entrepreneurs?
They risk their own capital and provide a valuable service in terms of identifying both undervalued and overvalued business.
Between them they have probably uncovered more corporate fraud and fanciful accounting than any government.
Where is the problem?
If you are going to have a market system you simply must have people who do the critical analysis, rather than be a bunch of cheerleaders, which permeates much of the financial press and large banking firms (which not only have political influence, but seem to get bailed out by said politicians).
{ deleted, abusive. Final and only warning, Grant}
@ Sofie Bribiesca – potatoes potartoes.
Les Mills is a great example of a New Zealand entrepreneur. The fact that his son has benefited doesn’t mean he hasn’t earned the wealth he has personally accumulated.
Having worked there you will know how good the cleaners are, how hard they work and how they can most definitely earn more than $13.50 p/h.
Donald Trump’s kids were born into a rich family too – but he has made sure they have earned their own way. And guaranteed they all work their backsides off too.
Bottom line whether your first job is as a milk hand, at a factory, a motel (cleaning), call centre whatever, if you want to make something of your life you can. I have done all of the above; employers always reward those who do the work, who go the extra mile.
And as for Salmond, just to add I agree with ” A nation that does not care for its children has a death wish. A society that destroys the environment that sustains it will fail”
However, ensuring a child is cared for and the environment is looked after can take many paths. I believe we are now on the right path by taking steps to encourage people to look after their own children instead of blaming the worlds ills on 1% of the population.
Problem I see with current Labour policy is that they are proposing the same path that has been tried, tested and failed since Savage introduced the concept of Welfare. I just can’t see how these policies will make the change this country needs. It doesn’t sound new to me.
I would also say that in contrast to Salmond, New Zealand has already experienced a “change in heart”, that this is almost synonymous with a change in government. We decided we wanted a government that would take steps to stop the rich and the higher incomes avoiding tax through LAQCs & Trusts, so that the top earners actually paying their share were no longer carrying the burden of the entire country. And it worked – a 3% reduction is a good step in the right direction.
QtR –
Actually now that you point out the lack of religious elements, you are quite corrcet.
I was trying to draw some from of parallel with the Nats views on limited govt and their distaste for the ideas of the welfare state juxtaposed with the ideas of landed civil society (farming, racing, rugby) and where espousing tradition and cultural tropes and myths (# 8 etc, blokism) is often used instead of reason to justify the status quo.
Not sure what you’d call it really. Like you say, probably best to do without labels.
@ Rebecca
You make some really interesting points, but it’s jumping around a bit and I’m trying to get to the heart of what you are saying.
Please tell me if I am wrong, but in a nutshell:
1. Kids are occasionally hungry for reasons outside of parent’s control but mostly it’s a result of poor financial choices
2. Child abuse is an issue of financial poverty
3. Most wealth is self made as a result of hard graft
4. Social inequality is a result of personal choices
5. There is no impediment to people being able to make the same choices re mortgage/kids/working hours
While I agree with point 1, I’m not so sure the rest are as clear cut. I have come to think that child abuse is more from cultural or ethical poverty than financial. That is not to say that welfarism and paternalism might probably the leading cause of such existential poverty.
I don’t necessarily think that social inequality is entirely a result of personal choices. I think to a degree that intrusive welfarism leads to an institutionalised mindset where people are, in a way, taught to be powerless over their own lives by having decisions removed from them.
So overall, I think there are impediments, but they may be more insidious than first assumed.
Gregor – I don’t think National has particularly strong views on limited government (if only they did). Rather their main political opponent likes to make uncharitable exaggerations (or charitable depending on your viewpoint). They have shown themselves to be thoroughly less than committed to taming leviathan by carrying on with Labour’s finance guarantee scheme, finance company bailouts, regulating cold medicine, banning synthetic cannabis, retrospective surveillance laws, and abrogating property rights through dubious legislation (that was Labour’s to start with). Clearly they are more skeptical of state welfarism than Labour’s arrant credulity (however, their aspirational appeals can themselves be at times facile).
To think about it makes one want to quote Mencken, but I think I’ll quote Nassim Taleb
Cheers Spud
@ Rebbecca No your wrong – Nasa has files around 3500 patents many have been commercialised to be used in every day life. No problem with people getting rich, just don’t forget that the tax payer funded the research and development that allowed the product to exist. The research/development cost of these products would be to prohibitive to bring end product to market with out State funding. Thousands of other examples out there from other organisation – geez haven’t even started on defence and medical.
I think you will find it difficult to find a period in time where significant advancement in knowledge has occurred without some form of State assistance..
Just spread the wealth around that this collective investment brings.
‘The rain it raineth on the just, and also on the unjust fellow; but more so on the just because the unjust hath the just’s umbrella.’ Trickle down never works – more umbrellas just get stolen by the already well-off.
@ Gregor W – interesting summary….
All social ills are complex and often insidious in nature. But there are always choices and regardless of who you are and what your circumstances are you can always choose to not bring a child into this world that you cannot afford to care for. If you are willing and able you can always choose to do things differently. Where you start in life doesn’t have to determine where you end up.
So the question is is Labour’s approach going to be the right way? Will increased Welfare solve our issues? Feed our children? Keep them safe? Reduce inequality?
I guess Nov 26 will determine whether most people think the answer is yes.
@ Richie re “just don’t forget that the tax payer funded the research and development that allowed the product to exist”.
Again a generalisation – most businesses do not stem from R & D. They just stem from a great idea – think Charlies, Nature Baby, Mountain Buggy/Phil & Ted, Tates, Wedgelock, PBT & Mainfreight. They came up with a great idea, got the backing, risked everything & went for it.
And the people who could afford to use their products & services – including Macs & PCs, are what made these people super rich. Demand always determines supply.
But who is the taxpayer though? The taxpayer has to be someone who pays tax and doesn’t get a dime in assistance back doesn’t it? If you are paying the same or less in tax than what you get in assistance then you’re not really paying tax are you? And given that the bulk of those that are actually paying tax are not the meagre rich (although still the top 13% of income earners) then what’s the problem?
If it is the high income – not the rich (they have managed to avoid a lot of tax all over the world) are paying for the rich to get richer and they are not complaining then why the gripe from the masses? Why the cry of inequality because others take the plunge to earn & accumulate wealth?
richie – The first internet model that was to become ARPAnet was designed privately by BBN Technologies prior to it gaining a government grant (from DARPA). A lot of different protocols were developed and used by private companies. If the argument is that the internet wouldn’t have been possible without the state that would be a fairly indefensible argument. I don’t know that anyone who actually tries to make such an argument.
Here’s biochemist Terence Kealey on The Myth of Science as a Public Good.
Forget trickle down. It’s about philosophy, Wendy: once you decide to destroy the property rights of anybody, and take their freedoms to feed the sheeple: once you decide to sacrifice the individual to mob rule, society is on the way to hell.
Read my Rational Capitalist quotation and link above, and see if you can still make that statement?
“potatoes potartoes.”
You’ve met my foreign cousins then! 
@Richie
@Wendy – True
“sacrifice the individual to mob rule”
um isnt that democracy in a nut shell.
The needs of the many outway the needs of the few.
Yes, Waterboy, you are right, but you seem to infer that is a good thing? Look at what has happened through the 20th century to all those societies that have not protected the smallest minority: the individual. Atrocity has often been the result. And don’t let that cloud, per the Rational Capitalist quotation above, the legal slavery our social(alist) democracies have put the productive under still.
Or to give you another view, by example, as you infer, democracy is a tyranny of the majority, so, what is missing from the below:
A social democracy is made up of 10 people, 8 of them are white, 2 are black. The democracy holds a plebiscite on the proposition that white people are allowed by law to live off the taxes and efforts of black people. Unsurprisingly, the vote is won 8 to 2. Under a democratic, majority vote, black people are now to be enslaved, legally.
What’s missing? (M*o*r*a*l*i*t*y)
Social(alist) democracies certainly are societies that are built on need, I remember Chris Trotter writing a blog on just that premise, and proudly. However, much of that need is created by welfare – it is self perpetuating. But worse, classical liberal freedom lovers understand the historical origins of such societies, is dripping with the blood of free men and women.