1. Entrepreneur: a person who starts a business and is willing to risk loss in order to make money; one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise Entrepreneur - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2. "Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Walter Isaacson, "Steve Jobs," p. 329
3. Often, we hear the phrase "income distribution." First, there is the implicit assumption that wealth is collective, and hence must be divided up in order to be dispensed, followed by the assumption that this division currently has no principle involved but 'just happens,'
In reality, most income is not distributed, so the fashionable metaphor of 'income distribution' is misleading. Most income is earned by the production of goods and services, and how much that production is 'really' worth is a question that need not be left for third parties to determine, since those who directly receive the benefits of that production know better than anyone else how much that production is worth to them - and have the most incentives to seek alternative ways of getting that production as inexpensively as possible.
Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, p. 150.
4. One of the founding myths of the religion of Liberalism is that of social justice. As Thomas Sowell points out (in Intellectuals and Society,) the Left believes that wealth should be shared, ignoring the fact that by way of capitalism, it is shared in the most efficient manner, through trade.
Conveniently unasked, is where did wealth come from? Pointedly, it did not come from heaven, like manna, and spread evenly on the ground! No, it was created by individual expenditure of effort, and by individual willingness to take risk!
Social justice thesis requires a belief that wealth-manna simply falls equally on all, and if anyone has more than another, it must have been stolen, gotten by cheating- the possessor of more must be a thief! To the Left, in spite of one hundred and fifty years of the most extensive and tragic disprovals of Marxism, the possession of property = proof of theft!
Mamet, The Secret Knowledge.
a. Money is merely the most efficient way of keeping track of the production of individuals, of their work, and the capacity of that work to benefit their fellows. Government, which doesnt produce this product, can do little with it but waste it: it cannot allocate it with greater justice than the Free Market. It should provide only those services that the Free Market was incapable of providing, such as the roads, the judiciary, streetlights, Legislature, and the common defense.
Ibid.
5. Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
The most fallacious assumption of all is that third parties with neither experience nor expertise can make better decisions based on a belief that the wealth of a nation should simply be spread around.
6. A great deal of the rhetoric surrounding variations in income proceeds as if society is collectively deciding how much to hand out to different individuals. If one accepts this fallacy, the "You Didn't Build That" fallacy, well, then .if society distributes income, it should do so in a different way, one that would be more 'desirable.'
Lets think about that. It would mean going from an economic system in which most people are paid by those individuals who benefit from their goods and services, determining rates of compensation based on supply and demand, to an economy in which incomes are determined by third-party decision makers who determine what everyone deserves.
What kind of lame-brain would vote for that????
Twice.
2. "Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Walter Isaacson, "Steve Jobs," p. 329
3. Often, we hear the phrase "income distribution." First, there is the implicit assumption that wealth is collective, and hence must be divided up in order to be dispensed, followed by the assumption that this division currently has no principle involved but 'just happens,'
In reality, most income is not distributed, so the fashionable metaphor of 'income distribution' is misleading. Most income is earned by the production of goods and services, and how much that production is 'really' worth is a question that need not be left for third parties to determine, since those who directly receive the benefits of that production know better than anyone else how much that production is worth to them - and have the most incentives to seek alternative ways of getting that production as inexpensively as possible.
Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, p. 150.
4. One of the founding myths of the religion of Liberalism is that of social justice. As Thomas Sowell points out (in Intellectuals and Society,) the Left believes that wealth should be shared, ignoring the fact that by way of capitalism, it is shared in the most efficient manner, through trade.
Conveniently unasked, is where did wealth come from? Pointedly, it did not come from heaven, like manna, and spread evenly on the ground! No, it was created by individual expenditure of effort, and by individual willingness to take risk!
Social justice thesis requires a belief that wealth-manna simply falls equally on all, and if anyone has more than another, it must have been stolen, gotten by cheating- the possessor of more must be a thief! To the Left, in spite of one hundred and fifty years of the most extensive and tragic disprovals of Marxism, the possession of property = proof of theft!
Mamet, The Secret Knowledge.
a. Money is merely the most efficient way of keeping track of the production of individuals, of their work, and the capacity of that work to benefit their fellows. Government, which doesnt produce this product, can do little with it but waste it: it cannot allocate it with greater justice than the Free Market. It should provide only those services that the Free Market was incapable of providing, such as the roads, the judiciary, streetlights, Legislature, and the common defense.
Ibid.
5. Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
The most fallacious assumption of all is that third parties with neither experience nor expertise can make better decisions based on a belief that the wealth of a nation should simply be spread around.
6. A great deal of the rhetoric surrounding variations in income proceeds as if society is collectively deciding how much to hand out to different individuals. If one accepts this fallacy, the "You Didn't Build That" fallacy, well, then .if society distributes income, it should do so in a different way, one that would be more 'desirable.'
Lets think about that. It would mean going from an economic system in which most people are paid by those individuals who benefit from their goods and services, determining rates of compensation based on supply and demand, to an economy in which incomes are determined by third-party decision makers who determine what everyone deserves.
What kind of lame-brain would vote for that????
Twice.
