Of course I know the answer - debt is no longer a way to grow a country out of economic malaise because the funds are never put to their best use. Not to mention when you have so much of it, it scares away investment because it increases the chance of collapsing the system. There's also the psycho-sociological havoc that's been wreaked upon the productive people in this country, sending them into an economic coma as we champion the losers of this country (single baby mama's, the poor, the "oppressed", etc.) at the expense of the true champions and heroes.
Until there is a future (and by future, I mean profit and freedom not to be taken away by the government to give away as bribe money to the losers of this country), you can expect the decline to continue.
Because no matter how much you may hate to admit it, it is the productive people, the "champions" that move society forward.
Not the ill.
Not the poor.
Not the "oppressed."
Not the connected.
Not the nepotists.
Not the rent seekers.
Not the old or infirm.
It's the Tony Starks.
The Howard Hughes.
The Bill Gates.
The Vanderbilts.
The Carnigies.
And those that just plain work for a living and support themselves.
The revolutionaries and industrialists that piss off all the right people because they constantly threaten the status quo because they found a better way to do things. Not the "single mom at the WIC office" or some AARP protester begging for more Medicare we're all so obsessed about championing these days.
Of course, we can continue to spend nearly 75% of the federal budget on these people via income transfers and hope somehow magically the economy turns around, or, we can put the producers and innovators back in charge, let them do their thing and help out everybody.
But something tells me people would rather force everybody to make $17,000 a year, rather than have a few people making $500,000 a year, another group $200,000 a year and the poorest only $50,000 a year. Because for socialists being "equal" is more important than being successful.
Because no matter how much you may hate to admit it, it is the productive people, the "champions" that move society forward.
Not the ill.
Not the poor.
Not the "oppressed."
Not the connected.
Not the nepotists.
Not the rent seekers.
Not the old or infirm.
It's the Tony Starks.
The Howard Hughes.
The Bill Gates.
The Vanderbilts.
The Carnigies.
And those that just plain work for a living and support themselves.
The revolutionaries and industrialists that piss off all the right people because they constantly threaten the status quo because they found a better way to do things. Not the "single mom at the WIC office" or some AARP protester begging for more Medicare we're all so obsessed about championing these days.
Of course, we can continue to spend nearly 75% of the federal budget on these people via income transfers and hope somehow magically the economy turns around, or, we can put the producers and innovators back in charge, let them do their thing and help out everybody.
But something tells me people would rather force everybody to make $17,000 a year, rather than have a few people making $500,000 a year, another group $200,000 a year and the poorest only $50,000 a year. Because for socialists being "equal" is more important than being successful.
Spot on, Captain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim, spot on!
ReplyDeleteSure Vanderbilt and Carnegie built up huge fortunes. But who cares. They helped develop the USA into an industrial powerhouse. A growing economy relies on bold individuals, that take risks. They venture into new areas, that most people are afraid to enter.
Now compare that to the collective mindset. A government committee votes on what direction the economy should proceed. Bold new initiatives would never emerge out of a government committee. The public school system is a perfect example.
Entrepreneurs take a society in new directions. They deserve what they have earned, and everyone benefits.
"But something tells me people would rather force everybody to make $17,000 a year, rather than have a few people making $500,000 a year, another group $200,000 a year and the poorest only $50,000 a year. Because for socialists being "equal" is more important than being successful."
ReplyDeleteI don't remember the sources offhand, but there is actually a fair amount of research that supports this very argument.
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
ReplyDeleteThis is known as "bad luck."
R A Heinlein