(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Video: Makers vs. Takers at Occupy Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street protests have popularized the distinction between the lowest 99% and the highest 1% of income earners. Prof. Chris Coyne suggests that a distinction between makers and the takers is a better way to understand the problems that the protesters decry.

For the video impaired differently-abled, Prof. Coyne is a professor of economics at George Mason University and he explains that OWS is incorrectly grouping people by income when they should be grouping them by what they do (make or take). The problem to solve is how to reduce the number of takers in society, whereas the OWS just wants to have government take more in order to "equalize" what the other takers have done. This would be counterproductive and just make things worse. What we want to do is constrain the takers, which includes government, encourage makers (or at least don't discourage them by taking from them).

Comments

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

Too lazy to look up a like button image, so:

*like button*

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm going to kinda sorta agree with you here. I think there's a difficulty in properly identifying the takers and also, what the hell we can do about it beyond demonstrations. What do you think would be effective action?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It sounds like Atlas Shrugged to me.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that difficult to identify them, if you look at it honestly. As for what to do about it, taking away the power of people and gov't to take is the only effective action. If that requires violence, then that's what may have to happen.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I see "takers" used explicitly to describe the government here -- but not to describe Goldman or Moody's. I wonder why that might be...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Then you didn't pay close enough attention. Also, Goldman or Moody couldn't have taken [as much] without gov't being the force behind it.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Someone just read "Atlas Shrugged" again?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that OWS had collectively proposed a solution to the problem yet.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

they haven't.

but we've got lots of suggestions

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If they're misidentifying the problem, then it's good that they don't have a solution.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Problem: when the takers have gathered up great sums, and the 99% are running on empty, they must take from the takers, and this is justice.

those who took, and made nothing, don't have a rightful hold on it.
those who make and get nothing and right to take something.

I mean, imagine a physical scale, in the traditional sense that lady justice holds. With finite material, how do you balance an unbalanced scale? You take the overloaded one and give to the underloaded.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Problem: when you lump a bunch of people together and call them all bad without actually bothering to figure out which ones are the takers and which ones are the makers, and you take from all of them, then you are just as bad as those you criticize, if not worse, and it's not justice.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sigh........frankly the only idea of "solving" the problem of rich-poor that libertarians have is to make the rich richer while calling the poor nothing but a conspiracy theory and hoax on the part of the media who hate the USA too much to admit everyone is really rich.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And incidentally, given the massive degrees of fraud in the private sector and the degree to which repeated scandals have exposed the rot in the state of Denmark there, why is it that we are to assume that the "givers" (i.e. the CEOs embezzling and defrauding and leaving their corporations three times as much in the red as their entire total profit margins) are any better or should be encouraged? How does the neo-feudal concept of libertarianism handle fraud besides pretending it either doesn't exist or is another hoax of the media hating on CEOs and other people who really aren't hated on?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's nice, and a non-sequitor.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Ok then. Wall Street does not produce anything so by his definition they are takers. Therefore by that logic government should step in and tax capital gains higher than production to minimize takers. So the Occup Wall Street protesters ARE protesting the right people, but he says they are protesting the wrong people.

DIVIDE BY ZERO - STACK DUMP FOLLOWS

This is a rather ham-handed bit of misdirection. I've seen much more clever propaganda from the right; he'd better not give up his day job.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Wall Street does not produce anything so by his definition they are takers.

I don't think you can show that all of Wall Street produces nothing.

Therefore by that logic government should step in and tax capital gains higher than production to minimize takers.

Why do you think that would minimize takers? That would merely take more from them.

So the Occup Wall Street protesters ARE protesting the right people, but he says they are protesting the wrong people.

Since they aren't protesting just Wall Street, your logic is flawed from the start. Wall Street is not the identical set of people identified by "the 1%".

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The problem to solve is how to reduce the number of takers in society, whereas the OWS just wants to have government take more in order to "equalize" what the other takers have done.

lol

[weswilson]

My impressions when people use the word "Takers" is pleasantly deluded from my Randian days by having read "Ishmael". Not all creation is making... not all consumption is taking.

[weswilson]

Lol... "deluded"... I haven't had my coffee yet. "DILUTED"!

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Not all creation is making... not all consumption is taking.

Um, are you sure. Seems pretty clear that all creation would be creating something, and if you are creating something, you're sure as hell making something.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Not all creation is making... not all consumption is taking.

I get the impression that Prof. Coyne would be in agreement with that.

nice try

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Totally subjective based on who defines what a 'taker' is.

Example: someone who cuts thousands of jobs in order to meet a goal resulting in a bonus is a 'taker' of jobs (lives) for their own enrichment.

*looks at you*

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suppose someone could try to come up with some weird definition in their own mind that would make this not make sense to them.

*looks at you*

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a new spin on the old story of Raiders and Traders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion). At least Makers and Takers seems like a variation on the peoples activities.

During the medieval warming period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period) Vikings journeyed out to explore new territories for unknown (but much hypothesised) reasons. The harvests at home were excellent and they had ample resources at home so it's possible they were looking for wives. "Raiders and Traders" is a term to describe the Viking activities.