Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wesley Mouch
I have big doubts about public subsidies for development. But that doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as the ignorance of how the world really works.
Fair
Quote:
Gilbert seems to have taken the public money we have offered for development. Well, gee. If you create a public program to give money subject to certain conditions, don't be shocked when it gets taken.
That too is fair, and I hold nothing against Mr. Gilbert for accessing the programs on offer.
Its a separate question as to whether they should have been; and if they should have, were the details correct.
Quote:
I'll be Gilbert would have done much of the same things he has done if we didn't have programs to toss money onto the fire of our ideas of how we want our government to try to manipulate results. Of course we'll never know, because we can't stop ourselves from creating more and more 'programs' [[or like E. Warren - 'plans') to 'fix' something.
Agreed here too. I would be supportive of some interventions you would not; but I'm not supportive of all interventions; and think every one should be subject to thoughtful scrutiny.
Quote:
And I can't understand how destroying successfully businesses helps reduce poverty. Looks to me like the success Detroit is having is mostly because of business success -- not so much because we give away tax dollars like drunken sailors on port leave.
Who was advocating destroying a business?
The reasons for Detroit's renewal, downtown, and many and varied, but Mr. Gilbert is among those who deserve some credit.
But I would not suggest that business alone is responsible; using that argument would lead to business having been primarily responsible for Detroit's challenges.
Certainly, business [[different ones) did contribute to the challenges Detroit has suffered. But it would be utterly silly to suggest they were the primary or exclusive causes.
Likewise, credit can be shared for Detroit's renewal among many actors.
Quote:
One final rant.... massive income or wealth inequality isn't a great thing -- but its not really that important. What's important is getting food, shelter, and safety to our most vulnerable citizens. It doesn't matter if Gilbert is rich. It matters if Joe Citizen can't get healthcare, or find a decent home in a safe neighborhood. Tearing down the rich won't help Joe -- it'll only hurt him. The singular focus on inequality is a real big mistake.
In economics, one is taught to understand that money is a representation of what society collectively is capable of producing/providing; and then access to that is divied up based on who gets the most money.
It is true society can and indeed should become more productive overtime, and has; and thusly the pie should grow.
But that doesn't necessarily mean everyone gets a larger piece.
How the pie is divided, so to speak, does matter.
Your Joe Citizen who works 40 hours per week without health insurance will only get it if:
A) he gets more money from his employer so he can buy it himself.
B) gets coverage from his employer [[money equivalent and paid by the employer just the same)
C) gets coverage through the government, which is paid for through taxes; evidently non his, as if Joe had enough spare cash to buy insurance he would have.
Any which way, money will go from someone[[s) who has it, to Joe who does not.
You can't divorce absolute wealth from the issue of relative inequality, as one is fundamentally the result of the other.