The WaPo's E. J. Dionne writes today about King County Executive Ron Sims. Dionne's column is remarkable only for its apparent sincerity and lack of irony. "Creating Wealth for the Poor"
Ron Sims, the county executive in Washington state's King County, believes government's job is "to help create wealth more efficiently."The tragedy of this is that Ron Sims and many of his fans probably really do believe this, even as their wealth is being pissed away on the idiotically inefficient boondoggles that Ron is responsible for. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 21, 2006 10:52 AM | Email This
What a dolt.
Posted by: Regret on February 21, 2006 11:12 AMRon Sims is a Neo-Socialist. Any time he starts talking about "creating" wealth for the poor, what he really means is using government to re-distribute wealth from one group to another. What Sims and the other Neo-Socs want is a big, communal country where individual rights, individual accomplishments, and individual responsiblity mean nothing. The sooner the folks of Seattle and King County realize this and toss this bum out of office, the better off we'll all be!
Posted by: Libertarian on February 21, 2006 11:12 AMWe could give you a tax cut, but you might not spend it the way we want you to...
This was Bill Clinton's explanation why he was breaking his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut, 1993.
Posted by: South County on February 21, 2006 11:42 AMLiberals don't know how to create wealth. Their expertise is in the redistribution. Most liberals would argue that the goal is to redistribute from the rich to the poor, but modern Democrats like Sims have come to understand that you stay elected by redistributing wealth to the wealthy. The richest in our society are the ones who fill the campaign coffers with just pennies on every dollar governments distribute in their direction.
It's a very expensive way to keep incumbent politicians in office.
Posted by: MJC on February 21, 2006 12:06 PMThat we can triumph over the effects of Comrade Sims' socialist policies is a compliment to every conservative/libertarian living in King County.
Posted by: Cartman on February 21, 2006 01:10 PMThe compensation for that production depends on the value society places on the product.
It is the individuals' time, effort, creativity that meet a demand that determines the value.
The only wealth government produces (a questionable concept) is when it produces a product that enhances an individuals ability to produce. What makes it questionable is that for government to produce something it must take from the producers. It is of value as long as it enhances the producers abilities. Move product better, make it easier to develop a new widget.
Government doesn't produce, it can hinder or enhance how things are done.
KC hinders through its policies. Taking more only increases that hinderance.
Posted by: JCM on February 21, 2006 02:33 PMFundamentally, wealth relies on "value", and value is something that is totally in the eyes of the beholder. I may have a billion dollars, but to me, just having money isn't worth more than some of the other things in my life I value more (my children, my piano-playing ability, my wife, etc...)
What these socialists don't get is that money is not a measure of wealth, never will be, and never has been. Wealth is only created when free people are able to trade freely without coercion one with another. Wealth is created because when a free market transaction occurs, both parties profit. In other words, they receive something of greater value than what they put in, and walk away with more than they had before. The other way of creating wealth--industry--depends on people valuing their manufactured goods more than they would normally because they expect to be able to trade it. In other words, Eddie Bauer wouldn't manufacture his clothes to the scale he has if he didn't expect to be able to get money in exchange for it. So, ultimately, it all comes down to free market trade and transactions.
Any action a government takes, by definition (because it is by coercion) destroys wealth, and perhaps many times what the apparent damage is. If the transaction were mutually profitable, it would be done without government. Government only involves itself to make people do something they would not normally do. When the two parties walk away from the transaction, one or both have lost some of their value or wealth.
The bottom line: free markets create wealth just by their existence, and forced markets destroy it. Government destroys wealth, and has never created a single dime of wealth. If it could, government would've been incorporated into a for-profit company long ago, or people would have done it naturally. Since that can't happen, doesn't happen, and won't happen, governments are not profitable.
The reason why Reagonomics worked was because it, at its core, minimizes the damage government does by reducing its size. (Government is, after all, a necessary evil.) If we were shackled with a smaller government that worked within the bounds set by the people, we would all be wealthier inherently. The reason why socialism and communism fails is because it turns government into a monster that devours any wealth anywhere. Its insatiable appetite turns gold into filth.
About the whole argument that if we were all billionaires it would be meaningless, that is not correct. If we kept the same money value that we have now and we all had a billion dollars, we would all be very wealthy. What you are arguing is that if everyone had a billion dollars, the value of money would decrease such that we would be in virtually the same position we are today. But would that necessarily occur if we all had a billion dollars? No, not if those billion dollars were earned through the free market. If we created dollars or if we took dollars from one to give to another, why, we are destroying wealth, and once we have finished, there will be so little wealth that the people would be leaving our country in canoes.
I believe it is possible to have societies where everyone has a lot of money and there is still a very high value of money, because I have lived for several years in such a society (South Korea). Everyone had much more net worth than I will probably ever have in my life, and yet the housing prices and food prices were not inflated. This is because they put a much higher value on money than we do. Despite SK's socialist government, at the core, the people are practicing free market trades under the table. And this has made a lot of people very, very, wealthy.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 21, 2006 03:41 PM
Queen Gregoire vs King Sims = Higher Taxes and regulation vs Higher Taxes and regulation.
What a choice!
Our side is much easier, we choose Rossi!
1. Get an education
2. Stay clean and sober
3. Get a full time job
4. Show up and work hard
That's about it. Nothing magic about it and it doesn't a village or half of everyone's money to do it.
Posted by: RJK on February 21, 2006 04:22 PMnicely done.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 21, 2006 04:30 PMYou were being kind to our liberal friends.
I'll meet you down at Walmart and we'll do some shopping!
You have it all WRONG...
1). Do not give them an EDUCATION...give them INDOCTRINATION
We have a POGROM for you.
2). Use whatever drug makes “YOU” feel good.
We have a POGROM for you.
3). Do not get a job...unless it is a “GUV-MINT WURK”
We have a POGROM for you.
4). If you must “WURK”...make sure it is a union job.
We have a POGROM for you.
Ron Sims plan for keepn’ em’ on the plantation!!!
I would add to your excellent list:
Get married, stay married and don't fool around.
Earnings for the married even if only one is working is higher than for singles. Married folks are more likely to uphold RJK's first 4 items.
Posted by: JCM on February 22, 2006 09:37 AMThe get married, stay married, stay sober, work hard bit helps a lot too.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 22, 2006 10:47 AMdo you know what the worst moment for an atheisis is... its when he feels thankful and has noone to thank!!!
Posted by: tacoma phlash on February 22, 2006 11:59 AM