Steve Wynn gives Jennifer Granholm...

[Yonivore]

...(and the rest of the failed-staters) the 411 on economics.

T7cW9ujow5E

Excellent economics lesson; Executive from a bankrupt state arguing her economic strategy against an executive running a still-successful business (even in the face of withering government intrusion).

Since Granholm didn't get around to explaining how government improves lives, I took the liberty of posting a couple of sound bytes from citizens of her state who succinctly and effectively explain the Granholm wealth-creation model.

fOZ-Etb0k0Q

I tried to find a clean audio copy (I don't know if there's video of this) but, in any case, disregard the DJ's editorializing and concentrate on what the people say about from where government largess comes...

[admiralsnackbar]

So the government creating the infrastructure for businesses to do business (highways, the internet, international trade agreements) doesn't contribute to companies having success and raising the standard of living? Riiiiiight.

I don't know what the Governor's position was since she didn't actually say anything, but I can certainly tell you that wasn't an economics lesson.

[Yonivore]

So the government creating the infrastructure for businesses to do business (highways, the internet, international trade agreements) doesn't contribute to companies having success and raising the standard of living? Riiiiiight.
Wrong.


I don't know what the Governor's position was since she didn't actually say anything, but I can certainly tell you that wasn't an economics lesson.
I didn't see your post before I edited my original...see Granholm's approach represented in the sound byte in my original post.

[admiralsnackbar]

Wrong.


If you can say "wrong" with a straight face, I honestly don't see what the point of revisiting your original post will be -- you clearly don't have an inkling of how interdependent the public and private sectors are.

And before you hold this douchebag up as some captain of industry, realize he's an insurance peddler, not a producer of goods. It's in his best interest to cry about government intervention because it'll hurt him, regardless of whether it'll help business at large. Don't be such a sucker.

[SouthernFried]

uh...when did providing insurance make one a "douchebag?"

Isn't that what Obama wants to do for everyone?

And he is exactly right. The source for every dime of revenue the govt takes...is from the private sector. It's the private sector that has provided the standard of living this country has.

I've never seen a President in the history of this country try so hard to destroy the private sector as Obama is doing now.

[admiralsnackbar]

uh...when did providing insurance make one a "douchebag?"

Isn't that what Obama wants to do for everyone?

And he is exactly right. The source for every dime of revenue the govt takes...is from the private sector. It's the private sector that has provided the standard of living this country has.

I've never seen a President in the history of this country try so hard to destroy the private sector as Obama is doing now.

That doesn't even make sense, man. If the public sector survives on the basis of how well the private sector performs, why would the government try to destroy it's patrons?

Re: the government having no place in enabling our prosperity... c'mon. Without roads you don't get to work or receive inventory. Without police and fire departments, you can't protect your assets. Without education, you can't make the best products or do the best work. And on and on. I agree that the money comes from the private sector (unless you tax your polity with inflation by borrowing from abroad), but government has been known to re-invest that money in ways that benefit everybody and -- miracle of miracles -- raise the standard of living for everyone.

As for the guy being a douchebag, it's because he speaks in absolutes when state and commercial interdependencies are grey zones, and vary from business to business. I don't have a problem with his defending his business, but insurance as an industry has different (and lesser) needs for infrastructural development than manufacturing and retail, for example.

[101A]

That doesn't even make sense, man. If the public sector survives on the basis of how well the private sector performs, why would the government try to destroy it's patrons?

Because the individuals in govt. by and large don't care about their "patrons" - they care about making sure 51% of the voting population likes them. That's the way the system is rigged. The "success" of their policies has VERY little to do with whether or not they get reelected.


Re: the government having no place in enabling our prosperity... c'mon. Without roads you don't get to work or receive inventory. Without police and fire departments, you can't protect your assets. Without education, you can't make the best products or do the best work. And on and on.

Roads, fire/police and education? What percentage of what the govt. spends are those? Insignificant. Cherry picking choices.


I agree that the money comes from the private sector (unless you tax your polity with inflation by borrowing from abroad), but government has been known to re-invest that money in ways that benefit everybody and -- miracle of miracles -- raise the standard of living for everyone.

Please cite a specific example - govt. takes money, and provides more standard of living than what it usurped. Not just redistribution.


As for the guy being a douchebag, it's because he speaks in absolutes when state and commercial interdependencies are grey zones, and vary from business to business. I don't have a problem with his defending his business, but insurance as an industry has different (and lesser) needs for infrastructural development than manufacturing and retail, for example.

He never said all government was bad; he simply said that to stimulate the economy it would make more sense to that through the private sector; whereas the current administration seems hell-bent on trying to do it through government largess.

[admiralsnackbar]

Because the individuals in govt. by and large don't care about their "patrons" - they care about making sure 51% of the voting population likes them. That's the way the system is rigged. The "success" of their policies has VERY little to do with whether or not they get reelected.

I don't entirely disagree, but saying long-term goals aren't a part our gov't's plans irrespective of popularity isn't right, either. Bush gambled his entire presidency on Iraq becoming a viable part of our long-term geo-political/economic strategy despite the war's unpopularity. Same goes for every conflict the US has been involved in since Korea. Same goes for NAFTA. Same goes for banking and media de-regulation. There's a reason "wag the dog" became a catch-phrase -- lobbyists are at least as important in Washington decision-making as voters.



Roads, fire/police and education? What percentage of what the govt. spends are those? Insignificant. Cherry picking choices.

I have the luxury of cherry-picking choices -- Wynn said government did nothing to raise the standard of living, and you already have my reasoning to the contrary.



Please cite a specific example - govt. takes money, and provides more standard of living than what it usurped. Not just redistribution.

Education.




He never said all government was bad; he simply said that to stimulate the economy it would make more sense to that through the private sector; whereas the current administration seems hell-bent on trying to do it through government largess.

He said government has never increased the standard of living -- if he said more than that, I missed it. I disagreed by saying government occasionally re-invests in infrastructure which enables the creation of more business, more jobs. I'd go so far as to say that they cannot exist divorced from one another if we're to have an economy the size we do.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a business owner, which means I'm not thrilled about every move this administration and the last have made -- but I'm not about to pretend that I'm not standing on the shoulders of government programs and infrastructure to which I at least partly owe whatever success I have.

[101A]

I don't entirely disagree, but saying long-term goals aren't a part our gov't's plans irrespective of popularity isn't right, either. Bush gambled his entire presidency on Iraq becoming a viable part of our long-term geo-political/economic strategy despite the war's unpopularity. Same goes for every conflict the US has been involved in since Korea. Same goes for NAFTA. Same goes for banking and media de-regulation. There's a reason "wag the dog" became a catch-phrase -- lobbyists are at least as important in Washington decision-making as voters.




I have the luxury of cherry-picking choices -- Wynn said government did nothing to raise the standard of living, and you already have my reasoning to the contrary.




Education.




He said government has never increased the standard of living -- if he said more than that, I missed it. I disagreed by saying government occasionally re-invests in infrastructure which enables the creation of more business, more jobs. I'd go so far as to say that they cannot exist divorced from one another if we're to have an economy the size we do.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a business owner, which means I'm not thrilled about every move this administration and the last have made -- but I'm not about to pretend that I'm not standing on the shoulders of government programs and infrastructure to which I at least partly owe whatever success I have.

You're obviously new to this.

You didn't call me any names, made reasoned responses to each of my objections. It ends there.

Good answers.