… by Increased Capitalism.
Oops! Ouch! That’s inconvenient!
It’s supposed to be Socialism that’s the big innovation; the thing that’s supposed to solve all the common man’s problems. The thing that’s supposed to solve, for instance: poverty. You know… the thing you have when you have a bunch of poor people? That thing.
But, it’s capitalism that solved the big one; the thing that that actually solved poverty(1): Economic Mobility.(2)
Without capitalism, free markets, and their concomitant economic mobility, you have nothing more than two classes: (1) a ruling élite, and… (2) all the impoverished, but “equal” rest. The common ruck. You and me.
It’s simply true.
Hear more about all that here:
The passage mentioned above is at 4:45 in the video.
And, of course, I challenge anyone on the left to provide any evidence that this is not true.
We’ve often issued that very same challenge, and none on the left have taken us up on it.We know why: There simply are no cogent, coherent answers to Conservative policy positions.
Meanwhile, our research project continues apace(3). After all, if there were something — anything — to say about our conclusion above, then surely the Left would jump all over this… with glee! Especially since we know that the “leading lights” of the Left read this blog. It’s been some years now, and not one single, solitary argument against what we said above has come from the Left.
(The challenge remains: We’re tempted to offer a monetary reward for someone who can come up with a better than moronic argument against our position. Something like $100,000. What do you think?)
Here’s another quote from the above-linked video: “The free markets are the greatest innovation in the history of humanity when it comes to the economy. It’s why you have nice stuff…”
Again, we challenge the Left to provide something — anything — to counter that conclusion.
We won’t hold our breath.
Listen to the rest of the above-linked video, to hear some really intelligent points. Why? Because Ben Shapiro is a really intelligent dude!
(1) It’s important to have a real definition of the phrase, “solve poverty.” By this we mean: “to put in place a system that that denies to no one the opportunity to better their economic condition in a reasonable amount of time.” Read that well. Implicit in there is the possibility that there are some who will opt out of the system, and choose to remain poor. These are the people on whom the Democrats count for their voters. They are of sound mind and body, but have decided that they simply don’t want to work for a living. We call them the “Willing Poor.” The Democrat Party is constantly trying to swell their ranks, so that they will have more voters. The more “Willing Poor” there are, the more voters there are who are perfectly configured to vote for more freebies for themselves from people who actually work for a living. The more”Willing Poor” there are, the more Democrat Party voters there are.
(2) Why is “Economic Mobility” the answer to poverty? Simple: without it, the rich remain rich , and the poor remain poor. It’s the very definition of “mobility.” With economic mobility, you assume the possibility that those who are poor have a pathway up, out of poverty.
The incredibly important distinction between economic mobility and socialism — which promotes “equality” — is the implicit possibility that one might fail to take advantage of economic mobility, and remain poor. It is for those people that a social safety net is, indeed, a valid answer.
(3) Our research project has a simple goal: to compile all the intelligent leftist arguments against Conservative political positions and to try to determine whether they have merit, validity, weight, veracity or truth. We didn’t find much of value. We did find out that most of the left are chronological adults but, largely, intellectual children. We tried really hard in the fever swamps of the Left, with no luck.
In all these bastions of the so-called “tolerant Left” we quickly found ourselves… banned. 🙂
If you’re trying to convince the world of your “tolerance” why on earth would you “ban”… anyone? If you had really convincing arguments to bring to bear against someone, why on earth would you ban anyone? If you had the means, via all these convincing arguments, to show someone the error of his way, why on earth would you ban anyone?
Answer: You wouldn’t.