Hillary Clinton vs Easterism and Builderism

Right now there are around 2500 search results for the word "easterism".  It's not readily apparent that there's a dominant definition.  So I'll throw my definition in the ring!

Easterism: the more people participating in the great Easter Egg hunt of life, the better!

Is this obvious?  A few facts...

1. Poverty precludes participation.  Not perfectly... but significantly.
2. Decentralization is discovery.  Here's my most relevant illustration...

Progress is a function of freedom.  The more freedom there is, and the more unique individuals fully enjoying this freedom, the greater the variety of paths taken... the more discoveries made... and voila!  Faster progress!  More prosperity!

Perhaps the easiest easterism example is China.  During Mao Zedong's centralization efforts... millions and millions of unique individuals were starving to death.  Needless to say, there wasn't an abundance of beneficial discoveries.  Then, in 1978, Deng Xiaoping took over and began gradually decentralizing the country.  As a result of an influx of capital/jobs... millions and millions of unique individuals were lifted out of poverty.  Now the world has added around a billion people to the Great Easter Egg Hunt.  Is the rest of the world going to massively benefit from this massive participation expansion?  Are the Chinese going to make discoveries that help humanity thrive?  That's the easterism theory!

There's always room for improvement... and the more people looking... the more beneficial discoveries that will be made.  Two heads are better than one.

So there I was, over at Medium, reading a story by Hillary Clinton... We need to raise incomes for hard-working Americans.  Clinton's story is, in terms of easterism and builderism, tragically incoherent.

Easterism

Here are some snippets related, more or less, to easterism...

I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas.

...

We are in a global competition, as I’m sure you have noticed, and we can’t afford to leave talent on the sidelines, but that’s exactly what we’re doing today. When we leave people out, or write them off, we not only shortchange them and their dreams — we shortchange our country and our future.

...

Trade has been a major driver of the economy over recent decades but it has also contributed to hollowing out our manufacturing base and many hard-working communities. So we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements.

...

As we pursue all these policies, we can’t forget our fellow Americans hit so hard and left behind by this changing economy — from the inner cities to coal country to Indian country. Talent is universal — you find it everywhere — but opportunity is not. 

...

And I believe that many business leaders are eager to embrace their responsibilities, not just to today’s share price but also to workers, communities, and ultimately to our country and indeed our planet.

...

To create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more Americans.

As an added bonus... here's an easterism snippet from Bill Clinton...

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. Why? Because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people affected — it hurts us all.

Builderism

Here are some snippets related, more or less, to builderism...

More growth means more jobs and more new businesses. More jobs give people choices about where to work. And employers have to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to compete with each other to hire new workers and keep the productive ones. 

...

Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

...

To get all incomes rising again, we need to strike a better balance. If you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly. So we have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime. And then we have to go further. 

I’ll crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.

...

Alongside tax reform, it’s time to stand up to efforts across our country to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven again and again to drive up wages.

...

I firmly believe that the best anti-poverty program is a job, but that’s hard to say if there are not enough jobs for people that we are trying to help lift themselves out of poverty.

...

What are the best ways to nurture start-ups outside the successful corridors like Silicon Valley?

...

To create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more Americans.

Analysis

Why is Hillary Clinton so incoherent?  Because she's a liberal?  Because she's a politician?  Because she's a woman?  Heh.  I'm just kidding about that last guess.  Really!  I swear!  I'm protesting too much!

It's seriously sad though that we can't have coherent leaders.  Talent is everywhere... but only in America!  We only want Americans to have more opportunities!  And only in America!  And let's rid ourselves of short-term thinking!  Let's replace it with local thinking!  Talent is everywhere!  We need more jobs!  In America!  We need to make it harder and easier to start a business!  In America!  Workers benefit when employers compete for them!  Workers benefit from intervention!

Unfortunately, nobody can see the disparity between where we are and where we should be.  Except for me.  Trust me, it's a huge disparity.

Thank goodness for my blog!  And for all my readers!  And for Adam Smith!

The owner of the stock which employs a great number of labourers, necessarily endeavours, for his own advantage, to make such a proper division and distribution of employment, that they may be enabled to produce the greatest quantity of work possible. For the same reason, he endeavours to supply them with the best machinery which either he or they can think of. What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse, takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into different classes and subdivisions of employment. More heads are occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented. There are many commodities, therefore, which, in consequence of these improvements, come to be produced by so much less labour than before, that the increase of its price is more than compensated by the diminution of its quantity.

... also...

But when the division of labour has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own.

See also:  Bernie vs Builderism