Patricia D once again proves that the average American adult is too ignorant and stupid about basic economics and that we should test people before we give them the right to vote.
OK, one more time, just because I love flogging this dead horse.
Liberals, leftists, socialists and other people who generally disagree with me about all matters economic.
Your understanding of how the economy works is wrong. You believe in the GLEOC model which presumes investments in education, health care, welfare, etc. will some how magically spur jobs. To pay for this you have only one, very tired, very worn out tool;
Tax the rich/corporations.
The problem is that you are once again putting the cart before the horse. Education, health care, welfare and whatever other things you call "investments" have no merit unto themselves. They do not spur jobs. It is the pursuit of profit, material items, wealth and the happiness that creates jobs. And when you punish people through taxation and (as it actually pertains more to Obama's policies) scare those "evil businesses away" with taxation and regulation for DARING to make a profit or DARING to buy luxury items, you kill the one thing that creates jobs.
If you don't believe me, think of it in another way. Is there any purpose of getting an education if there are no jobs? A lot of former Obama supporters who are recent college graduates are getting to face this question. Of course those who are too ashamed to admit they were wrong will claim "education is not about finding a job, it's about becoming a better person and getting an experience." I wonder how long they will stand by that argument when there's no food on the table.
If that doesn't convince you, then ask yourself this question. Does the existence of a government result in the creation of a society? Or is it the existence of a society that results in the creation of a government?
The short version of GLEOC is that the government does nothing to produce real economic growth and therefore real jobs. Simply because by its nature it can't. It GOVERNS society. It lives off of society. If there was no society, there would be no government. Ergo it is society that needs to create the jobs, not government.
Regardless, you keep voting in what deep down inside you all know to be true ignorance. You keep letting your ego and your feelings get in the way. You keep on telling yourself just like an aged 1960's hippie-turned-burnt-out-professor you were right for all these years even as the economy collapses around you DESPITE having more or less complete liberal policies enacted. It won't do a damn thing for you, and worse, it will make your children's future truly worse.
Or perhaps as my friend John said, "I love watching liberals have children nowadays. It's great entertainment. They now finally have skin in the game."
Enjoy the decline!
6 comments:
"Of course those who are too ashamed to admit they were wrong will claim 'education is not about finding a job, it's about becoming a better person and getting an experience.'"
It is sometimes sensible to assume debt in order to make an investment. But an investment is an expenditure which one expects to generate a monetary return (out of which, presumably, the debt can be repaid).
If you are not, at the conclusion of the expenditure, in a better position to repay the debt than you were before it, then it was (at best) a bad investment. Even economic geniuses sometimes make bad investments...but honest people do not try to defend their error by redefining the purpose of their expenditures after they prove to have been bad ones.
If you're rich enough to spend more than the cost of a house on a luxury consumption good like "becoming a better person and having an experience", then far be it from me to deny your right to do so. But if that's your only defense of the expenditure, you forfeit the right to call it an "investment", and certainly the moral authority to demand that taxpayers (or, indeed, any third party, such as your own parents) foot the bill.
Education is not, as you so clearly state, an "investment" in and upon itself.
While I will not deny that I have benefited personally from the liberal arts classes (oh, sorry, they are called core classes) I took in college, I have gain absolutely zero financial benefit from them. Well, to be honest, I cannot say zero, philosophy may have contributed to my career.
But, that not withstanding, I think the real test is to take a look at the want ads and see how many employers are hiring woman's studies graduate students. If the answer is zero, than that person gets zero government backed loans.
Want to "invest" in becoming a better person, great, do it on your dime, and do it with eyes wide open knowing full well no one is going to pay you for the knowledge you gained.
Perzfacts,as Ronald Reagan said in 1980 "A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT THIS YEAR(1980) we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, ..."
Well he changed it all right, and when he left office the stack of $1000 bills was 191 miles high.
So what did Reagan tell us about calculating his debt? (1) Start on October 1, 1981, and (2) Don't forget the interest costs of the debt.
October 1, 1981 is the beginning of his first budget year (fiscal year). He's right. He is not responsible for Carter's last budget year that runs until Oct. 1. But Reagan is responsible for his own last budget year, which ran until Sept. 30 1989. That's eight years, which is right for two terms. And, like he said, the interest on the debt matters. And since he and Bush-I left us $3.4 Trillion of extra debt when Bush-I's last budget year ended on Sept. 30, 1993, that debt started collecting interest, and it still is. Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama are not responsible for that interest.
Deficit spending, performed by Reagan and the Bushes are showing it's costs. Add in in a couple wars, a unanticipated spike in energy prices, which no longer have anything to do with supply and demand, and is the primary reason for the economic demise of many Americans( and countries).
Nothing will change economically until oil prices are cut in half, or more.
Simple question. What's the AVERAGE PRODUCTION cost to fill that barrel? Why are consumers paying so much more?
Like your site.
Just thinking.
Last year, Indian government passed a bill in Parliament which makes free education for all. Obviously,it is a huge waste. India is already a poor country and such ridiculous ideas increases corruption and poverty.
I expressed my views about it here The Myth of Education for All
While you'll certainly disagree with this, because you're an idealogue rather than a rationalist, here is a point to ponder.
You are pursuing the "government as parasite" line. This is simple black and white thinking that shows a lack of true analysis. Again and again, you look for the evidence to support your conclusion, rather than the other way around.
Is the government a parasite? Yes, if you conclude that it must fund itself through taxation. But what allows private enterprise to flourish? Surely, the government-funded legal-system plays a big part. Without enforced property rights and contract law, how successful do you think the private sector would be?
And the private sector lives off many government provided resources. Who educates the majority of its workers? Who provides the infrastructure like roads and defense?
The government as parasite argument is bunk. The private sector and government feed off each other. The question is where the balance between them sits, not infantile "one is good and one is evil" arguments.
You are correct on the public goods enabling AN ALREADY EXISTING society to grow and prosper at a faster rate, but that still doesn't debunk the fact that a society first has to exist before there is even demand for a government. Additionally, if you read the other post about GLEOC, you will note I point to government being a symbiotic parasite. Of course, once it goes beyond a certain point (where it now consumes 40% of production/the host) it is no longer simply symbiotic.
Post a Comment