Just look at all that pent up demand!
Posted on 06/01/2015 7:38:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
I don't know about for you, but for me, the most inspiring interview of the week occurred when CNBC's John Harwood interviewed presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. It generated a couple of thoughts in my head that I'm confident will be game changers. I'm secretly hoping that the Sanders team will offer me a job as their Chief Economic Consultant, as a result.
Here was the part of the exchange that really got my carbon-neutral cruelty-free non-fossil-fueled engine running:
Harwood: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?
SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right?
You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.
Obviously, everyone would trade economic growth for increased income equality. Having only one or two deodorant options, a handful of sneaker styles, and fewer other choices would be an incredibly small cost to bear.
The question then is "What do we do about it and how do we get there?"
It's simple: the government should determine the ideal number of options for all consumer goods and then limit production to that particular quantity.
For example, along Bernie's line of thinking, some people prefer deodorant and others anti-perspirant. Certain accommodations could be made. For those sensitive to smell, there should be a non-scented option of each, and for everyone else, a non-gender-specific scented option. That would bring the number of choices from the 23 that Bernie adroitly mentions - although in actuality there are likely hundreds of them - to a much more sensible 4. This sort of analysis could then be applied to everything.
There are certainly folks who have that kind of insight and knowledge as to what would be best for the country as a whole. Given that recent graduates of even the most prestigious of universities are jobless right now, they could be put to work at an extremely affordable level. For the most part they are all well-acquainted with the most progressive ideas of the day and so will be quite comfortable and able to make such decisions on our behalf.
This will please not everyone, of course. The first thing that comes to mind is Bernie's good buddies Ben and Jerry. Known for their progressive political viewpoints as well as their multiple and creative ice cream offerings, their decadent quantities of flavors would have to be limited by federal law as well. It may even be decided that ice cream should be banned altogether, as no one really needs it. And given that we are now collectively responsible for everyone else's health, it probably should be. All economic decisions, it must be remembered, involve trade-offs and keeping that front and center will be essential.
The result: the unleashing of an economic boom that will benefit everyone.
When businesses and entrepreneurs are forced to seek new and different products and services, that creativity will certainly yield unimaginable opportunities. Instead of going over the same old ground, effectively trying to get blood out of a mass quantity of turnip-scented Unilever-produced bathroom products, this new capitalism will end up actually doing some good. It would essentially be government-induced competition.
Another benefit would be the tremendous amount of space that would be freed up across the country within artificially over-valued real estate markets. Stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Best Buy, and others would need a fraction of the floor space they currently use. The resultant newly available square footage would be perfect for affordable housing and their convenient locations would eliminate the need for automotive transportation for most people. And that's also good for the planet.
Some might object, by pointing out places like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea, to say that the marketplace's freedom is precisely what builds wealth and grows economies. But they miss the fact that this is America and those countries definitely are not. Americans overcome obstacles. What could be more American than giving up income growth and silly wasteful excesses at the local mall for the sake of equality and fairness?
Honestly I’m not clear on whether this article is satire or not.
Regardless I will quote my favorite saying on the topic: “Socialism is like a nude beach - it seems like a great idea until you actually get there.”
I think the ridicule is strong in this one.
Venezuela and North Korea must be the most 'American' places on earth, according to this guy.
As far as anyone can figure, this old fool’s economic “plan” consists of people having fewer choices of deodorant and athletic footwear.
By Sanders way of “thinking”, you don’t need 23 brands of under-are deodorants.
By Sanders way of “thinking” neither do you need 20 brands of automobiles, or 15 brands of TV sets, 20 brands of microwaves, 155 brands of clothing, 30 brands of watches, 10 brands of gasoline, 13 brands of canned soup, veggies, pickles, soda, or ???? brands of various wines.
Sander’s way of “thinking” means you have you the right to buy the ONE brand of anything the Department of Whatever dictates is the one worthy of producing.
If I remember rightly, there was a political/economic systen that tried that exact thing. Didn’t make out too well, did it?
I can’t tell where the Sanders quote ends and the commentary begins.
You need choice and a profit motive to keep the economy going and bread on shelves! Keep government coercion out of it!
http://englishrussia.com/2015/01/20/borist-yeltsin-in-american-supermarket/
Private profit is public good.
Certainly if Bernie’s plan comes true,
why have political parties, one will do...
Once you get to the part where ultra-lefty multi-millionaires Ben and Jerry are nudged out of the ice cream business (an unnecessary luxury at best), it should be pretty clear that he’s laughing at Bernie’s socialist utopia.
I wonder how many choices of deodorant and sneakers Cuban citizens have to choose from.
Just name one country in any time frame and he will get my vote...
Well, not really...
Reminds me of the old Soviet GUM (Government Store) in Moscow.
Like pretty much everything else in Russia, it was huge. A vast floor space.
Thanks to Central Planning, one month there would be nothing but boots and shovels as far as the eye could see.
The next month, there would be nothing but raincoats and umbrellas, as far as the eye could see.
Post Soviet, the GUM was partitioned into a shopping mall. You will find a lot of American stores, JC Penney, The Gap, Sears, and many others. You will also find a lot of European store chains. And then, there is the staple of every mall, the food court. The variety is endless, and the government pretty much stays out of it.
So if you've developed a revolutionary new product, in Bernie Sander's Amerika, you would have to appear before the Department of New Products and get permission to produce and sell your new product to the public. In your presentation, you would have to provide proof that less children will go hungry as a result of the introduction of your new product.
You kidding? He huffs them!
Just look at all that pent up demand!
You have to wonder how close to the edge he really is. How could he possibly think destroying the economy of the U.S. would be good for the downtrodden? Yet I know people who worship him....
The struggle for climate change continues.....
This so-called “serious candidate” was put in to make Hilliary look rational(sane)by comparison. The party of Alinsky/hollywood are masters at deceit/manipulation, especially to young minds of mush.
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.