Posted on 04/05/2006 12:03:09 PM PDT by Ed Hudgins
by Edward Hudgins ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
Governments often get their wealth-destroying, morally depraved ideas from our often misnamed institutes of "higher learning." The latest that's popping up in bulletins, newsletters, and probably soon in legislation is from a 2005 study on "The Economics of Workaholism," co-authored by Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan and Daniel Hammermesh of the University of Texas in Austin.
The study starts by stating that "Economists have recently re-considered whether a range of individual behaviors are self-destructive, and possibly addictive, and have proposed that it may be Pareto-superior to tax them in order to induce people to abandon or cut back on them."
"Pareto superior" is an economic term that refers to some alternative distribution of wealth or resources that makes some individuals better off and no one else worse off. In this context the term means that would-be philosopher-kings pretend to know what's good for us and what is not and are probably poised to grab our freedom or our wallets and have their way with us.
Sure enough the authors go on to say, "The focus of this 'new paternalism,' associated with the burgeoning field of behavioral economics, has been on a set of activities (smoking, drinking, overeating, and gambling, in particular) … and on public policy responses in the form of 'sin taxes' that are highly regressive." The authors go on to state, "Here we begin to explore the economic implications of a self-destructive behavior that is likely to be more prevalent among affluent people -- workaholism."
How utterly brazen they are about their immoral intent! They admit that they're paternalists, that is, they treat their fellow citizens like children who need the care of, well, economists like themselves and they will manipulate tax policy to run others' lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at objectivistcenter.org ...
Crikey!! Who's gonna hold up the sky!
Liberalism: "We think you're stupid enough to need it!
Too painful.
Paragraphs fixed!
Thanks for fixing that. Now I've read the article and can say that this study is a stunning piece of work. Academics amaze me.
Are you cured?
Oui! I will only work 35 hours a week and I will burn a Renault rather than work one hour extra.
Excellent!
Did you see my Washington Times French-bashing piece from Saturday?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060331-090627-2105r.htm
And FR post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607459/posts
And our website:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1665-France_Labors_at_Folly.aspx
BUMP for later reading.
True workaholics are rare though. As opposed to those that claim the affliction as their biggest weakness in job interviews, or those so labeled by gold brickers.
Bet the nanny staters want to define it as >40 hour weeks or perhaps as actually working >10 of those 40 allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.