What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.
One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.
If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.
FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.
Indeed, while wealth creation is potentially limitless given the discovery and application of new technologies, especially, the level of wealth creation does rise and fall as a result of the rise and fall in the level of production. That's axiomatic. Good eye. Some might mistake my observation to preclude the ups and downs of the economic cycle.
I'm a Lockean, so I'm not keen on the historical concerns of socialist societies.
The Swedish model is indeed all you say it is and more, though as a Christian I can't abide the encroachments on the individual's natural rights and the moral compromises that go along with it. Notwithstanding, it works not only because the benefits are universally distributed in Sweden, but because the work ethic is strong there, its economy is competitive, its government is tolerant of educational choice and other partially privatized services, and the composition of Sweden's population is among the most homogenous on Earth. (Yes, I know there are those who argue that the latter is exaggerated, but Sweden is more racially and, more importantly, ideologically homogenous than America, and has, shall we say, a more selective immigration policy.) It would never work here, but, as you suggest, significant, "across the board" investments in genuinely durable infrastructure serve to promote the factors of production to the benefit of all the people. That's the way to go here sans punitive and insanely complicated income and corporate tax structures.
As for the barking madness that the higher returns of investment enjoyed by the wealthy somehow cheat the less wealthy out of their portion of the pie, that finite pie in the sky as if the production of wealth were a zero-sum game . . . what can a fella do but reiterate the obvious. As you say:
Just curious, what precisely in your mind constitutes right-wing extremism to the detriment of the economy?
Right wing extremism to me is, if you didn't earn it yourself you can't have. That would mean in the RWer mind that education should be paid for by the individual, there should be no government involvement in providing medical care, or assistance given to the helpless no matter how disabled, and the tendency to be racist and against the equality of women. In my mind, those are extremist RW. Many main stream conservatives believe in some of the same things the basic liberal of today believe, but just like the basic liberal, I cannot condone some of the LWer preferences of taking from the rich just to help those who are simply less wealth. What the LWer will not understand is, there are always poor people, even in a welfare state in which their basic needs are met. LWers tend to see ALL conservatives, or moderates, and basic liberals with the same lens. IE if we are extreme left we are wrong. We could probably converse on the subject for hours, but I think you have my drift.
I'm not looking for a fight, mind you, and we might even agree depending on what you have in mind. You strike me as a reasonable fella.
I'm one of those mad-dog conservatives, you know . . . according to left-wing extremists. A fascist. LOL!
Another thing LWers refuse to recognize is, FASCISM is nothing but a form of socialism. Instead of owning the production and distribution, the government controls it. The racist implications of FASCISM as we have observed it is an aberration, and there are many models of socialism which were not racist in basic intent, but they have still failed. There has never been a successful socialist state and in every case of true socialism the government has become autocratic or dictatorial.
What I am is a liberal, of course. The term conservative is a cultural label, referring, for the most part, to an American who holds to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded, whether all self-identifying conservatives fully embrace or be fully aware of the foundational doctrines of that tradition, concerning natural law and the state of human nature, or not. Of course, the conservative label does refer to a different kind of political species in other parts of the world. Leftist extremists in American don't seem to grasp these subtleties, more at the term's broader connotations. Contemporary American conservatives generally agree on Locke's labor theory of property at the very least, which is as solid as a rock in my opinion. Give me some of that old time rugged individualism: the preservation of private property, the foundation of liberty.
As you have stated so well, the classic liberal was our original economic intention in the US. I will also state that one of the major point of government is to provide for the national defense, law and order, and the protection of personal property - safe from exploitation by the "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY."
I believe in all of the basic and important parts of liberalism to include racial and sex equality, good public education, universal medical care, assistance to those who cannot earn their lively hood on their own, and other typical liberal points of view.
Of the things the dyed in the wool left wing extremists believe that I abhor, is the willingness to follow the propaganda of other extremists instead of thinking for themselves. One example of that is the ignorant contention that JFKs Supply Side reduction in the top marginal tax bracket by 21% and the reduction of corporate taxation are demand side. Nothing can be further from the truth, yet when they bring up exactly the same kind of tax reduction by Reagan or Bush they are terrible SUPPLY SIDE tax reductions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke.
Basically, being liberal DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO BE BLIND TO REALITY, and their blind partisanship keeps the locked into erroneous economic assertions.
