This you-tube clip does a good job in counter-pointing the new left wing bible: The Spirit Level.
It's worth watching just for that.
However, it's also worth watching the last six and a half minutes (wind to 39:00) to see the typical tactics used against the speaker in what was a fair and reasoned counter to the statistical analysis in The Spirit Level - a reflection on the many of the debates of our age.
The other thing to note is that *even if* income inequality is the single biggest factor in causing harm in society, then why the assumption that it can be fixed by communism, or at the least, socialism and big government (as I understand the authors were advocating)
Because income distribution by the government seems to be the implication, looking at how to get to the end result with an expectation that the route taken is inconsequential. Maybe, rather than relaying on the government, perhaps only when people voluntarily donate most of their income, or when divorce rates fall, or when people's lives incorporate a greater level of community involvement, etc would we get the utopia many crave? Maybe high taxation per se will not make a world of difference to anyone other than the bureaucrats paid good wages to administer charity?
Look at the recent case in Wellington of an elderly man found dead in his flat after 14 months. Calls for the government to pay people to visit them and check on them more frequently abound.
Will it really make a difference having some uncaring employee knock on an old person's door once a week to find out if they are dead or alive?
Alive, yep, check that box. Note: He asked about the weather and who might win the Rugby World Cup. Suggested he buy a paper.
Hattip: Kiwiblog
It's worth watching just for that.
However, it's also worth watching the last six and a half minutes (wind to 39:00) to see the typical tactics used against the speaker in what was a fair and reasoned counter to the statistical analysis in The Spirit Level - a reflection on the many of the debates of our age.
The other thing to note is that *even if* income inequality is the single biggest factor in causing harm in society, then why the assumption that it can be fixed by communism, or at the least, socialism and big government (as I understand the authors were advocating)
Because income distribution by the government seems to be the implication, looking at how to get to the end result with an expectation that the route taken is inconsequential. Maybe, rather than relaying on the government, perhaps only when people voluntarily donate most of their income, or when divorce rates fall, or when people's lives incorporate a greater level of community involvement, etc would we get the utopia many crave? Maybe high taxation per se will not make a world of difference to anyone other than the bureaucrats paid good wages to administer charity?
Look at the recent case in Wellington of an elderly man found dead in his flat after 14 months. Calls for the government to pay people to visit them and check on them more frequently abound.
Will it really make a difference having some uncaring employee knock on an old person's door once a week to find out if they are dead or alive?
Alive, yep, check that box. Note: He asked about the weather and who might win the Rugby World Cup. Suggested he buy a paper.
Hattip: Kiwiblog
They have it all a.. about face. really.
ReplyDeleteYou have to change peoples hearts to solve social problems.
Old people dying alone happen because nobody cares about them and redistributing wealth wont change that one iota.
On the other hand strengthening families will make it so less people fall off the radar because those from strong families with strong family ties do not die unnoticed.
And when you are conditioned to look to the Government then you are not conditioned to look to your neighbor who becomes not your responsibility but the Government's who shoulda done something ....