An Atheo-Leftist-Progressive Redefines “Economy”

Over at Massimo’s place, Michael DeDora gives a lesson on economics; first the definition:

”Economics is the matter of how to set up and manage the financial situation of a given society or community.”

Only a managed economy Leftist could conceive of economics in this manner.

Here is an actual definition:

” Definition of ECONOMICS 1 a: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services b: economic theory, principles, or practices”
Merriam Webster online

No mention of “setting up” or “managing” in that definition.
DeDora:

”Morality is also present in larger economic debates. Consider the question “how can we create jobs?” At face value, there might be little in this question that concerns morality. It is simply about increasing the number of jobs available to human beings. But what if I answered that the way to create jobs is to eliminate the minimum wage? Or to loosen restrictions on workday hours and factory conditions? Or to lower the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy? Or to repeal last year’s health insurance reform package? These questions all contain a moral aspect as well. Would it be right to allow companies to pay their employees however little they can get away with? Would it be right to rescind worker safety laws? Would it be right to increase the tax burdens on the middle and lower classes and allow further disparity? Would it be right to repeal legislation that increases the availability of health care? “

The inference that "we elites can create jobs" is indicative of the arrogation that their external management expertise and morality is necessary and sufficient for performing a function that is completely outside their ability to do so: a Category Error typical to the ALP’s. Industry, services and small business create jobs, and all that the self-styled managers can do is to inhibit that function either more or less. They can destroy more jobs or destroy fewer jobs – they cannot create them.

”The public has been outraged at every aspect of these potential and actual cuts and changes. The argument: such cuts are immoral given that these are necessary programs that benefit children and the worst off -- especially when there are other options, like taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich, or cutting, for example, the defense budget.

Actually DeDora must be referring to the Greeks. American polls show a decided favoring of capping government spending, period. In the USA, Social Security entitlement derives not from morality or government decree, but from personal ownership: citizens pay their own cash into a protected fund, and have been promised their cash back. But the “managers” of the economy stole that protected money long ago, to use for other government programs (undoubtedly moral ones…). Citizens are still paying into Social Security in order to support those retirees whose funds were stolen, but now the “managers” are threatening to steal that money too. From one side of their face they falsely claim that conservatives want to throw granny over the cliff; with the other side of their face they want to reduce health care to the elderly, using the Emmanuel human value curve.

And when the ideocrats haul out the Appeal To The Children, one can tell that they have no logical argument so they must resort to emotional appeals. Victimology is always at the fore in the ALP mind. What about the children of our children who must pay for the insane spending of this generation of “compassionate” Leftist-Progressives?

Now let’s talk about taxes on corporations. Those are passed straight down to the consumer; they are de facto taxes on the citizens. Corporate hatred is a class warfare ideology staple of the Left. And taxes on the rich: total confiscation of the wealth of the rich will not pay for the Leftist/Progressive spending orgasm of Obama’s first two all-Democrat years. Taxes on the rich are an ideological class warfare tactic, and that only. Cutting the defense budget? Defense is the one legitimate function of the national government that is being discussed here. But Defense is an Icon of Hatred for the Atheo-Leftist-Progressives, except those who get defense pork spent in their state.

DeDora:

”No matter where you stand on these issues, you cannot deny there is a moral component to all of them. Take the issue of taxing the wealthy. Many urge for higher taxes on the rich because they think it is immoral for a small band of people to horde most of the nation’s wealth while the majority suffers. Others argue that the rich should not be deprived of the money they’ve earned (though it should be noted much of this money is). Someone might desire to settle the debate by asking, “what is best for the economy?" But my point is that, at bottom, the question of “what is best for the economy” is really a question of “what should we want the economy to do or accomplish?” And that is a question not of pure mathematical reasoning, but of ethical contemplation.”

Ethical contemplation? Actually it is ideological boilerplate dogma, pure and simple. The “rich” have “inherited or made [their wealth] at the expense of the lower classes through practices put in place by the rich class.” And, “A small band of people horde [horde mind you] most of the nation’s wealth while the majority suffers”.Class hatred and warfare is disguised as an “ethical contemplation” – one the outcome of which is preordained. The undeniable “moral component” is class hatred; the undeniable conclusion will be redistribution via confiscation by government policy.

And this, DeDora admits, is key:

” But my point is that, at bottom, the question of “what is best for the economy” is really a question of “what should we want the economy to do or accomplish?”

In other words: We must engineer the economy from our elite centralized stations of ethical superiority and great wealth of knowledge as attested by our credentials to teach and our self-declared compassion for certain classes, which we wear on our sleeves for everyone to admire our moral authority.

Managed economies have always failed spectacularly. Ours is doing so now, after having been managed into a housing / banking catastrophe coupled with trillions in cash give-aways to prevent the consequences of the failure. The simplistic models of what constitutes an economy which Atheo-Leftist-Progressives have in their minds has never proven to do more than reveal their ignorance of the reality of complexity in the actual world of providing and distributing goods and services in a competitive environment, of dollars chasing goods and services, of developing and providing goods and services which people actually want to spend their dollars on. So historically, the Atheo-Leftist-Progressives around the world have eliminated competition and put the means of production of goods and services into the hands of government bureaucrats, who immediately specify the output and distribution according to this ideology:

“What should we want the economy to do or accomplish?”

That’s when breadlines form. Not for the bureaucratic elite who “ethically decide” and implement these things for “the masses”, but for the masses who are now equal under their ethical economy. Occasionally there is not enough bread even for the meager portions of the breadlines, and some segments of the population die off. In actuality, some segments of the populations have been targeted, ideologically, for insufficient distribution of bread. But those segments which remain are equal. One must break eggs to make an omelet.

When the Atheo-Left-Progressives start to declare an “ethical” attack on any institution, it is legitimate to ask for the source of their moral authority and for the specifics of their “ethics”, not to mention their means of implementation. It is guaranteed that “compassion” for certain favored classes over other hated classes and social engineering / social “justice” for certain favored classes over other hated classes will be involved. And because it can’t be implemented voluntarily, then it would need to be involuntary: just breaking more eggs for more omelets. All in the name of ethics and moral authority to adjust the “moral component”.