Who is setting it up? 

And hey -= about privatizing Social Security-  if you got to keep 100% ofthe tax, even with a 50% haircut in stock prices you STILL would get to keep more money that if the feds take  it and then redistribute it.  Its not what you make, its what you get to keep thats important.

As to the private sector, executive malfeasance is not surprising.  As a matter of fact, there are a handful of professions where participants can "earn" incredible salaries simply because they are in the middle of large flows of money and they skim their commissions off the top.  Personally, I do not hold these professions in the same high regard as I would an entrepreneur who develops a new products that people choose to purchase and thereby becomes wealthy. 

Private sector sharks and public sector powermongers will always exist.  The question is choice and freedom.  Whenever government (with good intentions) tries to clamp down on those that it perceives as predators, they inevitably impact the freedoms of those playing by the rules (gun control is an easy example).  But growing government gives the powermongers more power, who use this new found control to do what they personally want (redistribute wealth, solidify their seat, pander to get votes) and because they have the force of government to impose their will there is nothing to stop the tide once it starts to rise.

Nothing I can do will change the hearts of people content to be sharks or powermongers.  But I will err on the side of personal freedom and small government because this is the only way that an individual entrepreneur or employee can choose a path to wealth.  The government will never make an individual wealthy and government growth is a one-way street.  Thanks for not being my little brother.

In the private sector it shows up, among other places, in the compensation. Executives, all the guys who have a C… defining their role, aided and abetted by the Boards (made up of executives or former executives from other companies) decide how to compensate themselves. They make sure that whether the company soars or tanks, the compensation is as generous as they dare make it. Everybody else gets something else: if the company tanks, people get laid-off. That is not the neat balancing act in your model. The executives might leave, but they simply go to another company and start the cycle again. This can be validated by checking what the likes of Ken Lay, Thain, all the AIG guys and a list too long to type.

A similar situation takes place in the public sector, the pseudo-executives, the politicians also decide how to compensate themselves and everybody else gets something else. The main goal of the politician is to get re-elected. He spends most of his time on this activity; the staff does most of the work, writes and reads the bills (that is why the politicians can truthfully say they never have read the bills). If they are rejected by their party of affiliation, they change the rule (see Sen. Lieberman) and get re-elected by the opposition.

As to victimization/victim, I say it come in all flavors without distinction of party affiliation. No political party has cornered this market.

Finally, I am not your little brother.

I have offered details to specific "theories" that I believe accurately describe big picture of private/public sector economics and political vicitmization.  The measure of a theory is how well it reflects and predicts future behavior and how well it can be reproduced and verified by others. 

You say that the practice [of economics] is a rather different affair.   Can you offer some specific details that eclipse or invalidate the big picture observations that I offered?  Can you offer credible details of Traditional America or conservatives victimizing liberals? (I'm sure some blogs will help, but remember, you have to be in a position of power to victimize)

I feel like I'm debating my little brother.  I used to form arguments based on facts and he would simply say "no".  When I finally asked if his plan was to keep saying "no" until I gave up, he smiled and said "yes".  If you are going to comment on other's opinion it would be nice to provide some real details rather than saying the equivalent of "no".  Otherwise, perhaps you can keep your opinions to yourself.

It's interesting that you bring up victimhood.  There is an important distinction between being victimized and being a victim.  You cannot control being victimized just as you cannot unilaterally stop war; someone attacks you, the government takes more of your earnings, you are frivolously sued because you have a successful business.  Your choice is whether to become a victim in your own mind or not.  If you fight back, then you are not a victim, you are a combatant defending yourself.

Traditional America and conservatives who appreciate and defend the founding principles of small government and individual freedom are victimized daily in the press, by bureaucracies, by politicians and by judges.  But we are not victims because we don't accept it, we fight back.  That is probably why some  progressives and liberals dislike Jim's show because it clearly demonstrates who the aggressor is – the Left.

http://taxdayteaparty.com/guide.html

My issue is that in the case of these postings by Jim etc. is that they are more like red meat being thrown out than some cogent arguments. And that Conservatives are starting to present themselves as victims of the bad-bad government that takes away their hard earned money. That victimization line is fed to one and all by Rush and Jim when they rant against the Liberals. Ironic, yes?