8 ms·

Sorry, I can't resist: - "charlatan": I understand reasonable people can disagree with his analyses and policy recommendations... but how does this add to the d

• djrobstep 6y ago
  Here's a typical Sowell quote: "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money? The answer is ideology. "Entitlements" and minimum wages work fine and save plenty of people from poverty but Sowell wants to scrap them. Why? Ideology. Apologetics for capitalism.
  • jakebasile 6y ago
    Where does he state that the poor did not earn their wages while the rich did? It seems to me he's saying that it is ok for everyone to keep their earnings across all income brackets.
    • djrobstep 6y ago
      Saying that somebody's pre tax income is "their earnings" in the first place is precisely the problem. The tax you pay doesn't belong to you and you didn't earn it - the law is very clear on this.
      • mmm_grayons 6y ago
        > the law is very clear on this "That's what the law says" is a lousy moral justification for something. There are plenty of unjust laws or just things that are not laws.
        • djrobstep 6y ago
          Indeed. You make a powerful critique of those who say that pre tax property law defines what somebody has morally earned.
      • joachimma 6y ago
        Why is it not their earnings? That pre tax income gets payed out and taxed, because someone worked for it. If someone did not work for it the company they work for would not pay the tax amount to the government. It exists because of someones work. Once taxed it then belongs to the government, in a very real sense, the tax-payer no longer have access to it. While it no longer belongs to the tax-payer, it does not therefore follow that they did not earn it.
        • djrobstep 6y ago
          Why does the cheque sent to the government because of my labour count towards what I morally earned, but not the cheque sent to shareholders? Why do some institutions (property law, contract law) count towards what I truly morally earned but not others (taxation law)?
      • jakebasile 6y ago
        But that's not saying only the rich earn their wages which is what you claimed he said. He's saying everyone earns the wages they work for. Claiming that something is true simply because of law is fairly short sighted. There have been and continue to be unjust laws worldwide.
        • markharper 6y ago
          Claiming that something is right because it exists as it is under the current system without further justification is equally, if not more short sighted. It's where "plainspeaking" and begging the question combine into a kind of catnip for people that want reinforcement for their impulse towards the status quo. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but I've read one of his recent books and it was full of this sort of thing.
          • jakebasile 6y ago
            I am not, and nor do I see the quote in question claiming that because something exists it must be right. In fact, I'm arguing against that since it is the same as saying that something being a law does not make it just.
      • auganov 6y ago
        It doesn't even say that much. It simply ridicules proponents of wealth redistribution for sometimes calling those opposed "greedy", while they themselves are being "greedy" in going after other people's money. Whether taxes are okay isn't discussed.
        • djrobstep 6y ago
          It's not "other people's money" in the first place, that's the point. Packed into that notion is the idea it rightfully or originally belongs to the rich. It doesn't. It rightfully belongs to the poor who need food and healthcare.
          • auganov 6y ago
            Well, if you believe that all money one might have control over belongs to the poor (or somebody else) then I guess that's fair. But that's a pretty uncommon belief. In that way there's nothing special about the quote because most people generally recognize private ownership in everyday speech.
          • jakebasile 6y ago
            Again, there is no reference to "rich" vs "poor" in his argument. The argument is just a basic restatement of property rights - people own that which they've purchased through trading goods, services, or money. This applies just as much to any human being, except the truly indigent with no property whatsoever. Why is it greed for someone to keep what income/wealth/property they've earned while also is not greed to claim that someone else's income/wealth/property is actually owed to another group?
            • djrobstep 6y ago
              > The argument is just a basic restatement of property rights - people own that which they've purchased through trading goods, services, or money. Your contention is that some institutions count as property rights (contract law etc), but taxation law doesn't. I'm telling you the line between them that you draw is drawn purely with ideology. Taxation law isn't some adjustment that takes place after property law, it is part of property law. $X of tax paid by party A that ends up funding $X of social security payments to party B, literally belongs to party B. It is the property of party B. Not party A. It is not "someone else's" in any way.
  • deiznof 6y ago
    Agreed, it's a purely reductionist take on taxes while showing complete ignorance on who decides how much people earn in society. I wish people would stop listening to Sowell like he was the Jesus of economics. Outside of theory, he fumbles all the time.
    • alexarnesen 6y ago
      I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?
      • deiznof 6y ago
        It completely ignores political corruption 100%. It completely ignores union stomping over the past 60 years, among other things. This is what I mean by his ultra reductionist views, he refuses to consider external factors when he talks about social issues, which is weird for a top economist to do.
        • zo1 6y ago
          Anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and individuals that hold high-amounts of those related beliefs have very few basic laws that govern their world views (1-3, depending on who you ask). If you believe that the fruits of your labor are yours and yours alone with no exception, then no amount of talk of "union stomping", "historic injustice" and "external factors" will change the interpretation of the fact that taxation is violating that principle. So I fully understand how you think his views are utra-reductionist.
        • alexarnesen 6y ago
          I think some people in this thread are recalling interviews or talk shows with Sowell, while others are referring to his books. In video I have seen of him, I can agree he can be flippant on some topics... maybe the format of the television interview or "debate" or "round-table" would leave the impression that he hasn't thought carefully about these things. I'd recommend his books and essays. The notes on political corruption and union stomping over the past 60 years are intriguing, do you have any good references to solid academic sources on these or related topics?
  • LMYahooTFY 6y ago
    His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.
    • objektif 6y ago
      What he does not point out is exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. However, do not expect to see that in his books. You can always claim that there are too many people looking for work so it is natural that wages are pushed down blah blah. But think for a second does it really have to be that way? Can Bezos afford to pay more to his employees?
    • wry_discontent 6y ago
      "Corruption" is the wrong word, but from a Marxist frame, owners of business (which is what's actually talked about in Marx) profit by collecting more labor (and therefore value) from their workers than they pay them. It's usually called "exploitation" and it's pretty central to Marxist theory. If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.
    • ardy42 6y ago
      >> Here's a typical Sowell quote: "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." >> Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money? >> The answer is ideology. > His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. No it doesn't. His comment holds true only if you assume the current economic system that created the rich and poor men is right and just. For instance: the rich man is rich typically because he owns the capital (which can be owned at massive scale) and "earns" its profits. The laborers that operate that capital for him are much poorer than he is, because all they "earn" are wages for their time (which cannot scale). Sure a particular rich man theoretically can loose his shirt (but so can laborers, for different reasons), but the general relationship will remain the same between those groups under the current system. It's a deeply ideological assumption that the labor that enables profit is entitled to none of it (as such), and the owner (who may have enabled none of it) is entitled to all of it. Admittedly, it's an ideological assumption so fundamental to current society that it can be as hard to see as a mountain you're standing on. > Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of. I think the point is it's not much of an argument if it's little more than the output of certain ideological assumptions (e.g. assume P therefore P).
• jahaja 6y ago
  > Also, I was under the impression that property law benefits everyone in a society like the U.S., who has more than precisely zero posessions...? It's increasingly infuriating to debate status-quo, "all is actually quite fine, alright", liberals and conservatives when the effort to understand left-wing theory is slim to none.
  • justaman 6y ago
    Its so difficult to put forth effort when the basis of their beliefs are rooted in power dynamics and conformity.
    • kundra 6y ago
      If you want people to accept your point of view, the burden is on you to articulate it. There's a lot of this "people should just see it the way I do" attitude floating around the internet.
  • jokit 6y ago
    Communists don't have points or principles, only pretenses meant to enable their crimes. They label the cure "the disease", and the disease "the cure". They're antithetical to truth, and vice versa. ...and if this wasn't the case, they'd neither be in, or be interested in, the single nation on the planet that exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. There is only one bit of dialogue worth having with those who endorse the forced redistribution of wealth, and that is asking when they leave, and if they need help going. They have the entire rest of the globe to choose from, whereas decent, principled, people only have the hope of restoring this sole oasis. Communist activists in the US conspire against the Supreme Law of the Land. It's not okay to be communist anywhere, but least of all the United States.
  • collyw 6y ago
    I have seen interviews where Sowell discusses how he started out as a Marxist, but when he started looking at evidence that's what changed him. Is it fair to say that he doesn't understand left-wing ideology?