Folks on the Left often accuse conservatives of not being able to engage in complex or nuanced arguments. Truth be told, this is more likely a mirror into their own inadequacies about debating … pretty much anything.
Case in point is the whole discussion of wealth in America. According to the Occupy Leftists, they represent 99% of the population whilst rich people represent only 1%. While it’s undoubtedly true that 99% of the population earns less than a certain income and 1% earns more than that income, much larger, more complex questions need to be asked.
This column by NRO’s Veronique de Rugy starts the discussion. Well worth reading in full.
Related: Roy Green discusses “Big Government Anarchists” with several National Post columnists.
Isn’t the 1%/99% irrelevant? In any society anywhere on the planet at any time regardless of the overall wealth of the society, won’t there always be people in the top 1%? It’s unavoidable.
“Uncomfortable Questions for Leftists About Wealth”
Troll-baiting is trolling, Robert.
I recently engaged a hard-over liberal in a debate about the stock market. His contention was that the stock market was a ‘zero sum game’. I wanted to talk about how the stock market was a means of maintaining liquidity in the market. He decided I had no idea what that meant all on his own, typical arrogant way that a liberal tries to divert an argument. He said that no money is created in the market (which is a true statement). I pointed out that you could not have a conversation about the market without talking about wealth, which of course was outright rejected. Liberals, especially the academic types are generally arrogant people who think they can run circles around you intellectually. They’re putting lightweight arguments forward though. Either this guy had no idea how wealth is created, or he thought I didn’t and was trying to snow me.
Yesterday at SDA: “What we need is anarchy with a really big government to pay for it.”
Today at the National Post….
I should be getting some sort of residuals out of this.
You should be running that place, Kate. You already do all the heavy lifting for the lazy scuts…
@Mike, yes, it’s unavoidable. The 99% understand that there will always be a 1% above it. But when the 99% is faltering while the 1% is skyrocketing ahead, ah hah, then we have problems. When the gap between the 99% and the 1% has risen tremendously over the past 20 years, then we have problems.
When the 1% is taking all the jobs that the 99% used to work, and moving them overseas to dirt-cheap labour, then we have problems.
When, after a huge financial crisis, and with another one in the works, the 1% is giving themselves bonuses and patting themselves on the back for convincing the government to give them all that free bailout money, fighting attempts at regulating the behaviour that got them in the crisis in the first place, then we have problems.
And when you have court decisions like Citizens United, stating that unlimited corporate political donations are a protected form of free speech–that corporations have the same rights as people and that they are free to donate unlimited sums of money to political parties–it doesn’t matter if you have right-wingers or left-wingers in power, everybody can be bought.
If I can be thankful for anything it’s the fact that Harper isn’t weakening the laws restricting political donations in Canada, but is instead making them stronger (by banning union donations, etc).