Monday, August 1, 2011


A comparison: Secenario 1 - the government takes money from them that has it and gives it to them that don't. Them that has just gotten it spends it on... whatever, and then they don't have it no more. Them to whom it was spent has it now, so they spends it on... whatever. So on and on.

In this scenario, the money was placed in the hands of a chosen elite, and from there, it distilled out across the economic society - or, dare I say, "trickled down."

Scenario 2 - the government lets them that made the money keep it. Some of it they spends on... whatever, then they don't have so much no more. Them to whom it was spent has it now, so they spends it on... whatever. And so on and on. Now, them that made the money didn't spend all they had 'cause they's so stinkin', flithy rich. So what does they do with the rest of it? They invests it. What does that mean? It means that the money is loaned to them that needs it to start new businesses or expand existing businesses, or buy houses, or take vacations, or send their babies to college, or... whatever. And, as in every case, them to whom the money was given spends it, and them to whom it was spent spends it... and so on and on.

In this scenario, the money was left in the hands of the organizers (or creators) of wealth, and from there, it distilled across the economic society - or, dare I say, "Trickled down."

In spite of the apparent equivalency of the bottom line, the two scenarios are vastly different. In the first, there is chattel slavery of anyone the government chooses to call "rich." In the second, there is liberty.

In the first, decisions on the seizure and redistribution of wealth are made by government flacks who are known, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to be stinkin' crooks. In the second, some distributions may also be made my corporate flacks who are stinkin' crooks, but some will be made by those who understand things like honor, courage, integrity, risk, desire, drive, and persistence.

And here is a difference that I have never read anywhere else: In the first scenario, graft is a recognized, institutionalized part of the culture, to be aided, edified, sucked-up to, and bartered for more of the same.

In the second scenario, graft is a crime, and is punishable to the extent that the people have the will to punish it.

1 comment:

  1. A word on investments. In the second scenario in the previous essay, the wealthy are allowed to dispose of their wealth as they see fit. Some of that wealth will be invested. This is a phenomenon one does not see in statist, or fascist economies.

    It does not matter where the wealth is invested; the principles are the same.

    Here's a shocker: Really rich people don't put their money in mason jars in the back yard. Nope. They put it in banks, or CD's, or bonds, or stocks, etc.. Why do they do that?

    According to the fascists, the rich want to hurt the poor by keeping all that money out of circulation. That's why the fascists want to seize their money and "put it back in circulation." Fascists are all about helping the poor, don't you know.

    In reality, rich people invest their money because it makes them more money! How's that for philosophical consistency, eh? Rich people want to get richer! Wow! Who saw that coming?

    Investment means "renting money," or, more correctly, "renting wealth," but I don't want to drive any Kenysians over the edge. Yet. Renting money works just like renting a TV to some loser who is willing to squander a week's pay on a big-screen TV for Super Bowl Weekend. You let him have the TV, but you charge him for the use of it. An investor loans someone his money, but charges him a little for the use of it. (NOTE: The word "LOAN" means that you use something, but you have to give it back. This may be a dreadful shock to people who thought Barack would see to it that they never had to pay for anything again.)

    When a rich guy puts him money in a bank, the bank pays him rent on it. That's what interest is. Where does the bank get the money to pay him interest? Well - follow me on this - they loan the money to their customers, and charge a bit of interest. How much interest? Well, it has to be more than they pay the rich guy, otherwise, they'd go in the hole, and then they wouldn't be bankers; they'd be politicians.

    Money, like beans or any other commodity, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Yes, money has a price: the interest you pay when you borrow it. The more money there is available to loan, the lower the price, ie, the lower the interest rate. The more rich guys there are, putting money into banks and stocks and stuff, the lower the interest rate for Joe Lunchbucket who wants to add a new bedroom so his last kid doesn't become a birth control device preventing the next one.

    If a politician were really and truly interested in helping ol' Joe get a leg up, you'd think that politician would try to keep interest rates down, wouldn't you? But what does our current crop of looters want to do? They want to destroy the rich (well, not right away - they want to use them as "living meat," like some New Guinea tribes did by keeping captives alive while whittling off the odd chop or roast. Keeps the meat from spoiling.)

    There is only one way to make sure Joe Lunchbucket and his family can borrow the money they need for quality of life improvements - or to make sure the construction company that hires Joe can borrow money to finance new trucks - or to make sure the reformed gang-banger who has a breathtaking skill with a can of spray paint can get a student loan to study art.


    But, wait! the fascists whine. The government can just order the banks to keep interest rates low, and loan to anyone who needs it. Yep. Didn't we just see what happens when you do that? For cryin' out loud, you liberal idiots! How many times do you have to chase that skunk under the house before you learn to leave him the hell alone?