Scary Thought: Obama Has Eco-Marxist Take on Taxes

Consider the typical conservative-liberal (not leftist, liberal) argument on taxes.

Conservative says, "If you raise taxes, you will punish economic activity and wealth production, and thus have less of it."

Liberal says, "I don't think so. Maybe that would happen if I slapped on a draconian level tax, but I'm not doing that. I just want to raise it by 5%, and I don't think that will discourage much economic activity or wealth production. Well, maybe a small amount, but it's a good tradeoff, because even if we'll have a bit less wealth, the government will have a lot more, which it can use to buy stuff for the poorest people."

That's the standard argument conservatives and liberals have. But note in that argument that the liberal recognizes simply retarding/reducing wealth and wealth-producing is a bad thing.

His argument is not that it's a good thing, but that the wealth-destruction effect will be either trivial or non-existent. I.e., the negative consequences of some wealth destruction are outweighed by (what they see as) positive effects. But crucially he does in fact concede wealth-reduction as a negative.

The Eco-Marxists like Holdren and, presumably, Obama, do not believe that. (Personnel is policy, the old adage goes.)

They do not concede that wealth-destruction is a bad thing which must be mitigated and/or sharply limited.

For them, wealth destruction simply for the sake of wealth destruction is a positive good. Because the less economic activity there is, the less carbon dioxide. (And, if we have a really good famine and a mass die-off, a lot less carbon dioxide -- the lightning round bonus points!)

A liberal is against the reduction of wealth, all other things being equal.

But for the Eco-Marixst, the reduction of wealth is a boon in its own right.

Remember that Obama spoke casually of deliberately causing electricity prices to "skyrocket." Why? To make economic activity and, frankly, joy in life a more expensive proposition, and ergo reduce such things through the discouragement of very high prices.

As has been noted quite a few times, Eco-Marxists love the global recession/depression, because it accomplishes through natural (mostly; seemingly) economic forces what they would otherwise be required to achieve through unpopular, controversial leglistlation. In the present global recession we're all enjoying (as Bush the Elder mis-spoke), no unpopular leglistlation restricting people's right to travel, create, buy, and live need be passed; the destruction of wealth and fearful climate for wealth-creation accomplishes all that for them.

I don't think Obama actually wants the recession to go on. Being a vain man, and wanting a legacy, he knows that presidents that preside over long, painful recessions usually do not win second terms, and do not become beloved in the minds of the public.

But there does seem to be a fundamental philosophical conflict in him. For his ego, his vanity, he wants a recovery.

But based on his actual politics -- what he believes to be the Platonic Good -- he actively desires an America with less material comfort, otherwise known as "wealth" and "prosperity."

We already knew he would happily reduce our total wealth for the chance of redistributing it to the "more deserving." But I'm starting to worry he doesn't see the net reduction of wealth -- not redistributed to anyone, simply destroyed or never created in the first place -- as a social good worth working for in and of itself.

posted by Ace at 03:08 PM

| Access Comments