Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on February 16, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

I highly recommend David Sirota's Hostile Takeover -- just not for the reasons Mr.Sirota would probably prefer.  First, it's considered a "must read" by Al Gore. Secondly, it gives clear insight into how some American liberals view economics and the world in general.  To which I say, good for them. I love an open dialog with people of all political values. Mine are all over the place.

Mr. Sirota's book outlines a number of problems with our society and prescribes specific solutions for them.  His general thesis is that big corporations have taken over government and his general solution is to make government more powerful, which he assumes will thwart these big corporations.  Like many people, he fails to see that people who do stuff will always have the upper hand in any system over people who don't do stuff. The more powerful you make the government, the more able it is to be corrupted and abused by corporations -- which tend to be run by people who do stuff.

Let's outline some of his solutions:

On Taxes his solutions include:

  • When cutting taxes, give everyone the same amount back literally. As in, if you cut taxes, give everyone say $1000. I'm all for this as soon as we all pay exactly the same "literally" in taxes.  Historically, money is exchanged for goods and services.  The millionaire paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxes is getting the same services as the person who pays basically nothing. Why should a tax cut literally be the same? When Mr. Sotira and his wife travel Europe on vacation while some of us stay home and work (and are taxed on that work) why should I be punished for that and he rewarded by the government?

  • Fix the "regressive" payroll tax. This is almost on the same page where he says tax cuts should be literally the same. By regressive, his complaint is social security taxes are capped after $95,000 or so.  But social security and medicare are, in theory, set up so that the user has their own account. It is not supposed to be where rich person is paying for poor person's retirement. How about if we get rid of the payroll tax entirely then? I'm for that.  But what he seems to favor is having the middle class and the rich paying for ever increasing entitlements for the poor who aren't earning them.

  • Limit the home mortgage deduction to $500,000.  Right now, you can deduct interest on your mortages. But people like Mr. Sirota think that houses that cost over $500,000 shouldn't get to deduct this interest.  Besides the obvious problem of creating a disincentive for buying larger houses which has negative economic consequences, it's a slap in the face to the people who already pay the most in taxes. It's such a petty class-warfare proposal because it literally sets the tax code up to punish the very people who do the most good in our economy. 

He also has the usual stuff such as raising taxes on the rich which is always a signal to me of people who don't really understand the American economy but instead let ideology guide their principles.  

Before you get offended, let me explain: businesses and rich people don't treat taxes the same as the middle class.  The rich and businesses treat taxes as just another expense and when you raise those taxes, you're simply increasing their expenses which in turn increases the incentive to outsource or automate jobs that were once done by Americans. 

He also has solutions to the problem of wages:

  • Raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Why stop there? Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour? It's such an easy fallacy to crush because anyone can see that if you were to raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour the result would be a disaster.  So raising it to say $10 an hour would simply be what? A smaller disaster?

  • Use tax policy to tie executive wages to worker wages I love Marxist rhetoric. Worker wages. Executives don't work you see.  But anyway, he argues that taxes should be tied to the ratio between the highest paid executives and the lowest paid workers. Hey, why stop there? Why not have a ratio between the minimum wage clerk at Barnes and Noble and the amount pompous, clueless left-wing authors make? Why should the store clerk make what amounts to $15,000 a year while Mr. Sirota makes big bucks off the sale of the book he wrote? Heck, most book store clerks have to stand 8 hours a day whie Mr. Sirota probably was sitting while he typed up his book. So it wasn't even real work.

It's worth noting that Mr. Sirota's "evidence" to back up his solutions and the "myths" he attempts to debunk tend to simply be columns written by other liberals. It's like when a religious person tries to use the bible to prove the validity of the bible. It rarely occurs to liberals to actually ask business people -- you know, the people who hire and fire workers, what works and what doesn't. 

Mr. Sirota's myth busting usually simply involves insulting conservatives and "right wingers". A typical example was his "myth" that increasing minimum wage eliminates low wage jobs. In it, he complains that the data that backs this myth comes from "right wing sources" (you see, to a liberal, ideology is what matters).  Next time he's checking out his own groceries at the store, he should ask a store manager what prompted them to replace those minimum wage checkout cashiers with machines. Ask the owner of a Dairy Queen or a Block Buster or manager at a mall store how minimum wage affects jobs.  Of course, maybe they're all "right wingers".

The book is 350+ pages of this kind of thing.  I know this is rude but his book is just full of empty, philsophical tripe. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the consequences of his beliefs in the real world.  Mr. Sirota essentially argues for the virtual enslavement of the highest producers of our society and then is shocked, shocked, when those same producers end up moving their assets overseas to escape.

We live in a society where political belief has replaced actual deeds in determining the morality of the individual. The quasi-socialist like Mr. Sirota can feel morally smug because he believes (strongly) in government programs he'll likely pay little for while condemning me and my capitalistic ilk who actually pay for these programs, pay for most of the charties, create most of the jobs and provide most of the products and services he seems to feel entitled to.

Mr. Sirota's book is the result of someone with a keen intelligence that is unpolluted by real-world experience in the topics he feels strongly about. Which means it's a very good book outlining the mind set of left-wing intellectuals with regards to dealing with a mixed market economy.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 16, 2008
Sorry this has little to do with your blog or anything, but I had set up a blog on this site back in '03 or '04. Since then I lost my email and password, and I feel quite strongly about taking my blog off the site...? It's very outdated and google seems to be a lethal weapon nowadays. Though I tried logging in to everything under "lost password" I still can't get access to take this blog off. Not like I wouldn't use this site or anything; it's just that particular past entries are quite unflattering.
~?~
on Feb 16, 2008
You'll need to contact support@stardock.com to do that I suspect.
on Feb 16, 2008
I've always admitted I have issues managing my money. In recent years I have gotten better but still have ways to go. However, while I may be considered poor (in my mind I am not since I have what I need and I work hard for it) I agree with what you say. I enjoy earning what I have thru hard work; I don't believe in getting the Gov't to do or give me everything. It made me feel like they have a hold on me when ever I did get help from the Gov't during some difficult times in my life. I felt like they would someday come back, like a drug dealer, and tell me that I owe them a favor.

Part of a child's life is to learn responsibility. You do something wrong, you pay the price for your mistake, in other words punishment. Crash the car, lose your ability to drive for a while. Don't throw out the trash, cut your allowance. You get the point. I find it interesting how Liberals seem to wanna take that education and trash it.

I always thought the idea to make this country a better place was to elevate everyones status to a better lifestyle. The "teach a man to fish and feed him for life" concept. Liberals seem to believe why should we teach a man to fish when there are others who already know how to fish and can give some of their fish they caught to those who seem to be incapable of learning to fish or those who chose not to fish. Sooner or later we will end up with more non fishers than fishers and eventually those who do all the work will eventually realize why should they work when those who don't get to eat just as much as them, especially since Liberals also believe that even if you don't work or work as hard, you deserve equal pay. In this case, half of someones catches.

The sad part is that so many people believe that providing free services (why does anyone use the word free when it comes to the Gov't anyways) to those who are not able to or don't want to be rich thru self effort will somehow get them out of the porr status. Take it from me, I have been there, my family has been there and is still there, it doesn't work.
on Feb 17, 2008
I got to hand it to the guy!  He at least puts his name behind his insanity.  But the book is geared for the faithful only.  As anyone with brains would see the gaping holes in it easily.  It is just a collection of talking points.  So the question then becomes - how much did he sell his soul (name) for?  How much was he paid to pen the talking points for the liberals that cannot bare to have their name associated with stupidity?
on Feb 18, 2008
"Next time he's checking out his own groceries at the store, he should ask a store manager what prompted them to replace those minimum wage checkout cashiers with machines."

Hate those machines. Turns out the cashiers are much better at scanning stuff than I am. In my local Tesco the cashiers are always faster than the self-service machines.
on Feb 18, 2008
Hate those machines. Turns out the cashiers are much better at scanning stuff than I am. In my local Tesco the cashiers are always faster than the self-service machines.


When faced with losing your job and having watched The Matrix and Terminator many times over, wouldn't you wanna do your job better?
on Feb 19, 2008
It's brilliant to automate a grocery store. Other businesses, you can't really automate because you count on people having money to pay for your goods and services. But grocery stores will just get paid by the government if the people don't have any money. So why bother paying wages when you can eliminate the expense while not 'hurting' the economy of food purchases?
on Feb 25, 2008
I'll wait until he releases the deluxe anniversary edition embossed with gold leaf hammer and sickle.
on Feb 25, 2008

It's brilliant to automate a grocery store. Other businesses, you can't really automate because you count on people having money to pay for your goods and services. But grocery stores will just get paid by the government if the people don't have any money. So why bother paying wages when you can eliminate the expense while not 'hurting' the economy of food purchases?

In a globalized economy, the world become potential emplyees and customers.

Stardock's located in Michigan which has the worst economy in the United States. Doesn't affect Stardock whatsoever.  Nearly half its revenue this month came from overseas.

on Feb 29, 2008
I hardly think one "bad liberal" is representative of the whole. If that's how we should view politics, let's analyze the number of republicans in corruption and other scandals vs. democrats.
on Mar 02, 2008

David Sirota isn't a bad liberal. I think most liberals would agree whole heartedly with the points in his book.

on Mar 07, 2008
It's incredible how ill-informed your ideas about the economy are. I'll type out a few short remarks on each of your points, since I injured my left hand and can't type very well.

When cutting taxes, give everyone the same amount back literally. As in, if you cut taxes, give everyone say $1000. & Fix the "regressive" payroll tax. "Liberals," which you seem to think is a naughty word despite the fact that it means freedom, tend to think that progressive taxes are desirable because they believe equity is a virtue. We're not talking about paying a factory worker the same as a CEO. Rather, the idea is to provide basic livability to all Americans. Is it right to take a disproportionate share of money from people who earned it? Not if that's the only issue. But is it right to leave others destitute, or to keep social security underfunded and unable to pay out to folks who desperately need it? No, it's not. I, and "liberals" like me prefer a country where everyone has their basic needs met, even if that means taking a few extra bucks from other hard workers who are better off. There are theoretical frameworks in the theory of natural justice that support this conclusion, as well.

Limit the home mortgage deduction to $500,000. Yeah, this does create a disincentive for buying larger houses. That's a good thing, not bad. First off, the current housing crisis was caused, in part, by speculative purchases of housing. People buy houses because they expect to sell them for more than they paid. Economic theory rests on a market driven by actual demand. No one really needs a house that big, and in the long run it becomes difficult to re-sell these houses. Then there's the environmental issue. Bigger houses have larger ecological footprints. They use more energy. They have lawns that use a lot of fertilizer and water. They are not sustainable.

Raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This isn't an issue of paying people more than they deserve. It's about paying them what they need to survive. That's why it's called a "living" wage and why it's $10-$15 and not $50. Besides that fact, this would cut down on other types of social services that would need to be provided. Furthermore, several cities have given the living wage a trial run in certain sectors of the economy and found that there was no negatve impact on the local economy. There are alternatives to the living wage, but unless you're totally heartless you want to either provide a high-enough wage to survive or social services that can provide livability.

Use tax policy to tie executive wages to worker wages Honestly, I don't know as much about this one. I imagine this would help raise the lowest wages, but it may be an unnecessary market intervention, especially if a living wage were enacted.

I guess I ended up typing more than I thought I would, but there are studies which dispute your claims, besides which I find your callousness distasteful. I am speaking from my own experience in social science and public affairs. I just hate to see people spewing ignorance.
on Mar 07, 2008

It's incredible how ill-informed your ideas about the economy are. I'll type out a few short remarks on each of your points, since I injured my left hand and can't type very well.

One of my favorite features of left-wingers is their assumption that those who dno't agree with them are ignorant or unenlightened.

Especially when none of the issues you then mention have anything to do with economics and everything to do with social justice.

You would have been much better off saying "I strongly disagree with you in terms of social justice". 

I am speaking from my own experience in social science and public affairs. I just hate to see people spewing ignorance.

LOL.  Well there you go, social science and public affairs.

I speak as someone who actually creates jobs, runs a multi-million dollar business and actually deals with the real world.

If you re-read what you just posted, you'll see that all of your arguments boil down to emotional arguments, not issues of fact.  Almost nothing you stated has anything to do with economics. Social justice or your personal philosophy on how society should be organized have nothing to do with how the real world actually functions.

 

on Mar 07, 2008
Alright buddy. I should have said I have a bachelor's in social science and a master's in public affairs. Yes, I disagree with his view of social justice and that is an opinion (although I think his view is totally heartless). I thought that was given.

I did mention several factual elements in my argument, such as the living wage programs. I also provided an economic argument against large houses. The problem with conservatives is that they automatically assume liberals are bleeding hearts guided by nothing but emotion. Yes, many of my beliefs are guided by personal preference, but they are informed by scientific inquiry, economic theory, and analytical methods. If you believe the neo-classicist rhetoric played up by many conservatives, you are simply ignorant of the reality of market failures. If you make claims like "a living wage would be a disaster" you better back it up. Whereas I defer to real-life policy experimentation.
on Mar 07, 2008

I did mention several factual elements in my argument, such as the living wage programs. I also provided an economic argument against large houses. The problem with conservatives is that they automatically assume liberals are bleeding hearts guided by nothing but emotion. Yes, many of my beliefs are guided by personal preference, but they are informed by scientific inquiry, economic theory, and analytical methods. If you believe the neo-classicist rhetoric played up by many conservatives, you are simply ignorant of the reality of market failures. If you make claims like "a living wage would be a disaster" you better back it up. Whereas I defer to real-life policy experimentation.

Do you have a URL to your successful business? Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would show some restraint when you go around claling people ignorant.

I can say a living wage would be a "disaster" because I know precisely what would happen since it is people like me who create the jobs, not you.

I don't let my beliefs be guided by personal prejudice. If it happens, then it is by accident.  I base my beliefs based on how the world actually works - not how I wish it worked.

You use loaded terms like "housing crisis". What do you mean specifically? That foreclosures are running high right now? And you think most of those people got into trouble because they were using their houses as an investment? And you think that the solution is to set some arbitrary amount on what people can write off to discourage people from buying houses that are too big? 

The houses being foreclosed on is publicly available data.  The average PURCHASE price of the typical house being foreclosed on is less than $300,000. Did you know that?  Of course, you must have right? You're into public affairs.   It's not rich people causing the housing crisis.  It's people who had poor credit who managed to get credit to buy a $200,000 house when they really could only afford a $100,000 house or less. 

And on living wages, you force employers to pay a rate higher than what they want to pay for an employee and they'll just not hire them or they'll outsource the job or automate the position.  We've already seen this happen.

But what really gets you into trouble is how quickly you resort to spitting out that I'm ignorant or brain washed.  In the real world, it's people like me driving the economy. The people who build businesses, invest money, hire and fire employees.  I'm a small timer in the bigger scheme of things but I'm representative of the driving elements of our economy.

My beliefs don't come to me because professors drilled them into me or because I have warm fuzzy feelings about society and how it should be organized. My beliefs come to me from observating how the real world actually functions and operating within those parameters.

So unless you're willing to point to some significant economic achievement of your own, you should think twice before playing high and mighty.  You may disagree with my economic views but you have not earned the right to assert that I'm ignorant.

2 Pages1 2