Great minds expose the issues in our current economic and cultural war. Problem is, most of us are not paying attention. Distractions are consuming. A current one is watching Cher’s son, Chaz Bono, on “Dancing With the Stars.” On that note, I’m wondering if he wishes he’d just stayed home. It’s painful to watch, yet la-la-land really is a magnet. And there I digressed, or did I?
Most of us try to follow along with issues, but they’re complicated; muddied by rampant verbicide, the distortion of the definition of words. Allow me to recommend two genius authors who clarify for me what we’re up against: Friedrich A. Hayek, considered one of the 20th century’s greatest economic intellectuals, and Jeffery Sachs, a renowned one-worldest and current adviser to the U.N. Secretary-General. Their viewpoints on America’s financial and cultural health are starkly contrasting, and most informative; a must read. No matter your party or your occupation, they empower the reader with understanding, for truly, without perspective, we are doomed.
Take those befuddled Wall Street protesters, for example. For sure it’s easier to be led by the loudest voices or to just follow the red or blue line. That we know. And, here in the East Valley, with our pristine communities and well manicured streets, it’s especially easy to do la-la-land. But, have you noticed the vast number of empty strip-mall shops, your unemployed neighbor, or perhaps you’ve donated to food banks and heard stories of the new homeless? If our awareness is underdeveloped, we’ll dance with the demise of our freedoms and national security.
Hayek, a Nobel Prize winning economist, warns that those who do not understand the issues may feed into “lower intellectual standards” within society, “where primitive instincts prevail” and power brokers manipulate with something as simple as words. Yes, current philosophies need to be studied so we can clarify our own terms.
Hayek’s work is significant, a keystone among conservative economists and philosophers; see his “The Road to Serfdom.” Some call him a prophet among economists. Recently the Heritage Foundation distributed a summary of “Serfdom” to its membership. See details online.
Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute, is the author of multiple books and articles on “ending extreme poverty.” See “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtues and Posterity.” His goals sound great.
In a recent Wall Street Journal book review (Oct. 1, 2011) Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) challenged Sachs’ theories, as someone should. He labels Sachs “a crusader against our free enterprise system.”
Noted is the power Sachs has attained in world influence; his ideology envisions a level, economic playing field, worldwide. Yes, “redistribution of wealth.” That term sounds fair to the unlearned, but Hayek clarifies and issues dire warnings of an economic collapse if governments continue to interfere with commerce and citizen ingenuity.
He clearly explains why recessions are needed to adjust and naturally administer health back into an out-of - economy. When government messes with it, as we’ve seen over the past decade, it makes everything so much worse though it’s easier to feed citizens “cake” to keep them “happy.”
Hayek points out that the theories of the Sachs of the world count on “the docile and gullible,” the unread and unlearned, to get into lockstep.
Thus, both Sach’s and Hayek’s intellectual deciphering is worth studying and demands response — otherwise, our children are doomed to boogie the night into socialism, right into the dawn of fascism.
• East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen (turleyhansen@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and former Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:55 am on Sat, Oct 8, 2011.
It's easy to see the results of our liberal/progressive college indoctrination in the protests on Wall Street. The prominent demand being "income redistribution" a mainstay of Obama's political philosophy. The protesters are complaining the system is unfair and the government should make everything fair and just. The underlying demand that they deserve a high paying job with free government health benefits and that all business should be unionized. The complaints and demands are changing at times but which will eventually lead to demanding everything on Obama's agenda.
Ring of Gyges posted at 5:51 pm on Sat, Oct 8, 2011.
This is one of more interesting articles that Mrs Hansen has written. I like the fact that she is asking for the citizens to actually pay attention to what is going on in their Republic. Unfortunately, her political ideology and rhetoric ruins the op-ed. Yes, many things in the world are complex, and are hard understand. We look to people that can explain these things to us, in a way that we can understand. Sachs' view of the redistribution of wealth is correct, but this is by fair not a radical idea, even in classical liberal ideology. Adam Smith, a classical liberal, had a view of some sort of government intervention. His study of price leads to an investigation of its component parts—wages, profits, and rent; and thus Smith is led to consider fully the subject of the distribution of wealth. His theory of value at the hands of certain later writers becomes the classical cost-of-production theory; while, given another slant, it becomes the labor theory of Marx and the socialists. Yet, Smith was not a T.H. Green welfare liberal, but he did advocate for some sort of redistribution (like Sachs), mostly in the form of a consumption tax. Rep. Ryan's quote of Sachs as “a crusader against our free enterprise system” is just a saying to gain political points. The Wall St. protesters are one-in-the same with the Tea Party. They are both wondering what has happened to the middle-class the past 30years. The Tea Party wants to blame government, and the WS people want to blame corporate industry. The truth probably lies in the middle, but the hyperbole used by both sides, and Mrs. Turley, will never get us to the mean between these two extremes.
geekette posted at 7:45 pm on Sat, Oct 8, 2011.
Linda, please don't throw -isms around if you don't understand them. Facism is an extreme right ideology, while socialism is left-wing, but not as far left as communism.
davidflucier posted at 6:36 am on Mon, Oct 10, 2011.
Hansen's columns always end up as a total non sequitur...where does she come up with this stuff? And how in the world does this pass as a journalistic piece on any level?
mrconservative posted at 10:39 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.
Facism is hardly extreme right, geekette..
downtownresident posted at 11:18 am on Sun, Oct 21, 2012.
Linda, this says it all, " Distractions are consuming. A current one is watching Cher’s son, Chaz Bono, on “Dancing With the Stars.”
I knew you were a flake (And I don't mean Flake) but talking about DWS just proves to me how meaningless anything you say really is.[sad]
Cas Lee posted at 7:58 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee