I think it just comes down to the core of their "philosophical foundation."
It is my belief that Leftists very much believe that life is a Zero Sum Game, and that this similarly applies to wealth and wealth creation.
Simply put, they believe that wealth (or, innovation as a subset of it) is transferred, not created. Wealthy people "took" money from others, which is why they are bad. When society "uses" resources those resources are "gone" for others to no longer appreciate.
They believe that wealth creation and consumption is simply greedy and selfish. And destructive to others' wellbeing.
So in order to prevent this "resource destruction" they seek to control everyone as much as possible, because people aren't to be trusted.
This may sound overly simplistic, but I have spent years trying to figure out the average psychology and mentality of Leftists. I also believe they are more emotional and prone to irrational arguments.
Have a conversation with a "highly educated" Leftist about "millionaires and billionaires" and they'll get right to telling you why they think "no one should have that much money." When you say to them that money is only a unit of exchange and that NO ONE has to do anything for a billionaire they look at you like you have six eyes. Then, "why does it bother you if you never have to interact or do anything for a billionaire if you don't want? Money is only a measurement of the value that they have to give you in exchange. If you don't want it, they are powerless, no? And, money is a rough measurement of the value they have created for others. Those 'other' did not and would not have to transact with that person if they didn't get value out of the relationship. So what's the problem?"
"I just think that no one should have that kind of money."
For all the claims of leftists being Marxists, most seem to be from the Cardinal Richelieu and Edward Misselden School of Economics: Mercantilism, but without the obsession with gold in the national treasury - which makes sense as they view nations as obsolete in a "globalist age".
It appears to me that the dominant school of economics for leftists is Keynesianism. It allows for two things they love: government spending and their control of government spending. Both feed their base desires of control over every aspect of our lives, along with their paranoia over not getting their piece of the aforementioned resource pie.
They are also for totalitarianism, as a means of restricting unfettered and uncontrolled wealth creation. It is my belief that a lot of "old money" are leftists, simply because when you are on top, you don't want new money supplanting your power and influence in both markets and ideology.
When was the last time you heard a leftist celebrate wealth creation?
They are rather infamous for "lifting up the ladder of success" once they (the newly minted wealthy Leftists) have their wealth secure. The gorgeous but flawed biopic about Howard Hughes had a good scene where Hughes (played by Matt Damon [queue Team America voice]) pointed this out to his fellow millionaires.
I think they are Keynesian sometimes (when it comes to govt spending) but truly they think all gains come from central authority and govt which is Marxist. They are big believers in "Behavioral Economics"; because it assumes the irrational investor==>and they are purely rational and smarter than the rest so they should "nudge" us.
Yeah, forever frustrating when their solution is ALWAYS punishing the constituents in order to feed their agenda and egos vs. thinking of how to make things better for their fellow citizens. And somehow we have no problem paying them with our tax dollars, and paying for their whims with our tax dollars, even if it doesn't make things better . . . "Thank you sir, may I have another . . . " is not what I signed up for.
There is a book published in 1931 titled 'The Conscription of a People'...by Katherine, Countess of Atholl. It is specifically about the Soviet Union, but the title describes well a class of political thinking which in increasingly dominant today in the US as well as in Europe.
The stated motives for the Conscription vary over time...once it was economic growth, now it's Climate Change and 'equity'....but the desire to tell people what to do remains constant.
Atholl deserves to be better known...she was also early to see the menace of Naziism...apparently the edition of 'Mein Kampf' published in England has some of the more alarming passages removed; she did her own translation and gave it to Winston Churchill.
Precisely. A good example would be all of the low level functionaries like journalists or teachers or precinct captains who do the bidding of those with money and power because they like being able to assert their control over others, even though they have no money or real power. Basically, they get off on controlling others.
I think they get off on it as a power trip, but I also think it's insecurity over their "station" (yes, a very European word). Who wants to feel insignificant?
And a lot of these people have massive egos that require a high level of sustenance.
Spot on. “Useful idiots” to the powerful. It’s the free thinkers who don’t want to be manipulated. The insecure are willingly manipulated as long as they get their small bit of perceived significance.
They can't compete in the arena of ideas.
They "innovate" in solar.....it's just a waste of time
I think it just comes down to the core of their "philosophical foundation."
It is my belief that Leftists very much believe that life is a Zero Sum Game, and that this similarly applies to wealth and wealth creation.
Simply put, they believe that wealth (or, innovation as a subset of it) is transferred, not created. Wealthy people "took" money from others, which is why they are bad. When society "uses" resources those resources are "gone" for others to no longer appreciate.
They believe that wealth creation and consumption is simply greedy and selfish. And destructive to others' wellbeing.
So in order to prevent this "resource destruction" they seek to control everyone as much as possible, because people aren't to be trusted.
This may sound overly simplistic, but I have spent years trying to figure out the average psychology and mentality of Leftists. I also believe they are more emotional and prone to irrational arguments.
Have a conversation with a "highly educated" Leftist about "millionaires and billionaires" and they'll get right to telling you why they think "no one should have that much money." When you say to them that money is only a unit of exchange and that NO ONE has to do anything for a billionaire they look at you like you have six eyes. Then, "why does it bother you if you never have to interact or do anything for a billionaire if you don't want? Money is only a measurement of the value that they have to give you in exchange. If you don't want it, they are powerless, no? And, money is a rough measurement of the value they have created for others. Those 'other' did not and would not have to transact with that person if they didn't get value out of the relationship. So what's the problem?"
"I just think that no one should have that kind of money."
"ok."
👍
For all the claims of leftists being Marxists, most seem to be from the Cardinal Richelieu and Edward Misselden School of Economics: Mercantilism, but without the obsession with gold in the national treasury - which makes sense as they view nations as obsolete in a "globalist age".
It appears to me that the dominant school of economics for leftists is Keynesianism. It allows for two things they love: government spending and their control of government spending. Both feed their base desires of control over every aspect of our lives, along with their paranoia over not getting their piece of the aforementioned resource pie.
They are also for totalitarianism, as a means of restricting unfettered and uncontrolled wealth creation. It is my belief that a lot of "old money" are leftists, simply because when you are on top, you don't want new money supplanting your power and influence in both markets and ideology.
When was the last time you heard a leftist celebrate wealth creation?
They are rather infamous for "lifting up the ladder of success" once they (the newly minted wealthy Leftists) have their wealth secure. The gorgeous but flawed biopic about Howard Hughes had a good scene where Hughes (played by Matt Damon [queue Team America voice]) pointed this out to his fellow millionaires.
Great quote/comment. If you don't mind, I'm going to steal that phrase: "lifting up the ladder of success."
Encapsulates the idea perfectly.
I think they are Keynesian sometimes (when it comes to govt spending) but truly they think all gains come from central authority and govt which is Marxist. They are big believers in "Behavioral Economics"; because it assumes the irrational investor==>and they are purely rational and smarter than the rest so they should "nudge" us.
Zero Sum Game...should be their campaign slogan
Yeah, forever frustrating when their solution is ALWAYS punishing the constituents in order to feed their agenda and egos vs. thinking of how to make things better for their fellow citizens. And somehow we have no problem paying them with our tax dollars, and paying for their whims with our tax dollars, even if it doesn't make things better . . . "Thank you sir, may I have another . . . " is not what I signed up for.
The relative strength of DE and CAT is astounding. The market speaks. Have fun at CES.
Jeff, Another good article. I'm glad you liked CES.
There is a book published in 1931 titled 'The Conscription of a People'...by Katherine, Countess of Atholl. It is specifically about the Soviet Union, but the title describes well a class of political thinking which in increasingly dominant today in the US as well as in Europe.
The stated motives for the Conscription vary over time...once it was economic growth, now it's Climate Change and 'equity'....but the desire to tell people what to do remains constant.
Atholl deserves to be better known...she was also early to see the menace of Naziism...apparently the edition of 'Mein Kampf' published in England has some of the more alarming passages removed; she did her own translation and gave it to Winston Churchill.
Interesting, since he was in the "Wilderness" at the time most likely.
It’s just control
Precisely. A good example would be all of the low level functionaries like journalists or teachers or precinct captains who do the bidding of those with money and power because they like being able to assert their control over others, even though they have no money or real power. Basically, they get off on controlling others.
I think they get off on it as a power trip, but I also think it's insecurity over their "station" (yes, a very European word). Who wants to feel insignificant?
And a lot of these people have massive egos that require a high level of sustenance.
Spot on. “Useful idiots” to the powerful. It’s the free thinkers who don’t want to be manipulated. The insecure are willingly manipulated as long as they get their small bit of perceived significance.