Advocating ideas and policies that result in untold wealth and human happiness since 2006
The Rational Capitalist
Too bad he dumps on self-interest at the end."Self interest" needs better PR (or we need a different term) because people see it as "To hell with you. It's me at your expense!" rather than being able to visualize the harmony of self-interests which occurs in a system of voluntarism.
Yeah, I don't think that was right to characterize it that way and to couch everything in more pragmatic terms rather than moral terms, but I did like the fact that he turned the argument around and accused the teachers of "greed" for wanting pay raises when the state is broke. I also like how honest he is with respect to the budget and what needs to be done. It's amazing how powerful a strong principled approach is. It immediately disarms his opposition because it is not cloaked in some altruistic nonsense and therefore hypocritical - he states the truth and acts on it. The one guys asks "you have a spine, but others don't, so what do you do in other states..." As soon as you have a "spine", no one can assail him. That's what I like about him.
Don't get me wrong-- I liked him too. Just pondering on how to move understanding forward on the matter of self-interest. It's just that I have spent today reading various medical ethics statements and it is discouraging how none of them grasp the fact that acting in the patient's best interest is in the doctor's best interest---and vice versa. So they have to get all "holier than businessmen" and claim a moral superiority because we are a "profession" --not grubby profit seekers. Ugh.
He had a perfect opportunity to state that consumption does not grow an economy in response to the interviewer asking what will happen when those teachers would not be able to spend as much in the state. I'm still waiting for a politician to truly speak out against Keynesian economics from a principled position. Oh well, Christie is still a breath of fresh air.
Well, he did say the idea of spending as the solution was "dead wrong" and asked rhetorically, "spending with what?" and referred to this as nothing more than increasing taxes and debt and further "grinding the economy to a halt."I don't know the extent of his knowledge or beliefs, but in that kind of a soundbite forum, I think what he said was very effective because it pointed to the ultimate consequence of "spending" without launching into a technical lecture.
Post a Comment