Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
Daune Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 8:12 AM
It isn't about altruism - it's about the benefits that come from everyone working to maximize their own welfare. You say you would build an automated factory that would hire a minimum of workers - but you are overlooking the fact that someone has to build, design and maintain that automated equipment. All of that supports jobs - jobs that very probably pay more than the factory floor worker job. Depending on what you make, it will also create further manufacturing positions using your product, or sales jobs selling that product. No action is taken in isolation, and the only way your argument works is by ignoring the interconnectedness of self-interest in creating wealth. Your self-interest benefits mine, and together we create wealth.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Daune Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 8:18 AM
Even if you sent the manufacture of your product to China - it would still create jobs here. Your product would come back here - dock workers benefit, sales people benefit, truckers moving your product across the country benefit. You're perspective narrows the "jobs" created to the factory floor - like Obama's automated teller example limited his to bank tellers. The snowball effect of jobs created anywhere, as long as those jobs create wealth in the form of usable or sellable product, is always overlooked by people wanting to take money from the "rich" to give to the government - which is arguably the only way money fails to create wealth. Broaden your perspective and you will see that your factory is better than government spending.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 8:25 AM
And there needs to be people who can afford to buy your products. How can they do that if no one has a job. Henry Ford paid his employees enough so they could buy the products he was building along with other common folks. He understood that if there's nobody to buy or they can't afford the product the company goes out of business.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
MarineCorpsVet Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 9:21 AM
As soon as he would start making money he would soon have union goons nosing around seeing if they could get enough workers to unionize and suck more money out of his corporation and into the union leaders pockets.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
meowbius Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 11:24 AM
Right on, Daune. Anti-altruism fail :)
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, "Who's
The Fairest of Them All?", Barack Obama would have lost the election in a
landslide.
The point here is not to say, "Where was Stephen Moore when we needed him?" A more apt question might be, "Where was the whole economics profession when we needed them?" Where were the media? For that matter, where were the Republicans?
Since "Who's The Fairest of Them All?" was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year's election. But this little gem of a book exposes,...











An Overdue Book