Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 9, 2014

The comments below should have been included with last week's edition of Comments Blocked By Conservatives but they were temporarily inaccessible. In addition, family obligations will limit the number of comments listed here for the near future.

June 27  


To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost on using drones for good. This appeared in the Acton blog.


Certainly, drones can be helpful, but there are questions to be asked too.

First, will a specific use of drones add to the immediate unemployment and wider technological unemployment problem?

Second, will the use of drones mean sacrificing quality of work because there are some things that humans can do that drones cant?

Third,  will the use of drones add to the depersonalization and dehumanization of society?

Fourth, will the legitimate demand for drones justify the current investment in the research and production of drones?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on pay increases and forcing pay increases. This appeared Acton blog.


The problem with this post, or one of the problems with this post, is that it pretends to speak for left-leaning economists. I read left-leaning economists and the concern expressed here is not what they are concerned about. 

But the main problem with this post is that it is so focused on what any pay raise will do for the businesses involved, it makes what the lack of pay raises do for the  workers involved invisible. It follows here that in Carter's view, ramifications on businesses matter, the effects on the lives of workers and other stakeholders do not. This focus on business comes into play again when neglecting to mention that  pay raises compete with business profits shareholders want to enjoy. I am talking to more and more people who, when dealing with other businesses at their workplace, find that many things in those businesses, including the number of employees and pay, are being sacrificed for the sake of higher shareholder dividends. And with certain retail products, we might want to inquire about the use of sweatshop and trafficked labor because such reduces costs and increases profits eyed by shareholders.

In addition, there is no mention of corporations that, on the one hand, corporations use gov't assistance to subsidize their payrolls while, on the other hand, do what they can to avoid paying taxes.

It is unfortunate that so many pertinent factors are left out here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and the video he posted on his blogpost on the moral value of economic growth--it is a short video. This appeared on the Acton blog.


But Smith also saw that the division of labor has dumbing down effect on people because of the limited scope of the work. And when division of labor is applied to countries, that makes some countries dependent on others for vital goods such as food and medicines. This dependence reduces the sovereignty of the weaker nations.

I could go through the other parts of this video but all of the parts would lead to the same summation: that what is good for business is good for the world. The problems that come with wealth disparity is made moot by economic growth and economic growth, when having reached a certain threshold, will be used to solve environmental problems. But such is a deduction that is not supported by looking at the facts on the ground.

Finally, the point about economic growth and greed is simply too simplistic. Yes, greed is a part of human nature. But how we grow the economy can either feed or help inhibit that greed.

This post really make no points about the morality of economic growth because it conflates all economic growth together without distinction as to how that growth comes about or whether there is a limit to which economic growth stops being beneficial to our living--a concern expressed by Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef. The basic message about this post and the video it contains is that the financial bottom line is the only concern because all boats will float on the rising waters of profits.  It is similar to the old slogan, "What is good for GM is good for the nation." Did that turn out to be true?