Turn it on in Settings › Safari to view this website.
This message will be pushed to the admin's iPhone instantly.
The government has embarked on a full-scale assault on the American public, aimed not only at ravaging the poor for a few special interests, but vastly increasing the number of people consigned to poverty. FULL ARTICLE
How to answer â€” in their own language â€” the question “liberals” always ask: What About the Poor?
Well put Mr. Cleveland,
The majority of people in this country continue to be as gullible as ever, we are and have been being led by swindlers left and right and the only difference between them is how much should be stolen at any given time. As much as the conservatives today may berate the left as Marxist Socialist, almost all of them agree more with the left — in principle — than appose them. They have no problem with theft in general, they just don’t want to steal as much and end up tipping their hand or killing off the enslaved golden sacrificial goose.
Great article. Although, I am wondering why the blog entry credits Jeffrey Cleveland as the author, while the full article credits Paul Cleveland?
And yet the hypnotized masses applaud Obama and viciously attack anybody who doesn’t worship him.
Why try to prevent this robbery from occuring? To the contrary – let them have it!
Massive government debt and monetary inflation are the greatest assaults on the poor. Destroying the value of their money and transferring wealth from wage earners to those who hold government debt do seem to me rather “warlike” policies.
I’d rather suspect that both serve the purpose of leviathan quite well and are in fact the feature, not the bug, of the situation. Create, expand, and intensify the poor: create more constituents for government theft. Didn’t the Romans have this one figured out perfectly: bread and circuses.
Rob Mandel said:
“Didn’t the Romans have this one figured out perfectly: bread and circuses.”
Yes, exactly. While they feasted upon the government bread they watched the gory spectacle splayed before them on the Colosseum floor and were the authors of their own demise.
Just my thoughts,
BaRack Obama, not BaRRack…
To tar all government action with one brush is a mistake. I live in California, where government intrusion, regulation and silliness have just about peaked (hopefully). But on Maslow’s “heirarchy of needs”, I am still at a net gain from government activity. Without the largesse of the U.S. Senate in giving to the railroads land that belonged to someone, anyone, else, the market for California agriculture would never have been developed. Without the army corps of engineers, and forced capitalization through promised taxation, we would have none of the dams and water systems, and therefore none of the cities, west of the Great Plains. Without Eisenhauer’s interstate highway network, paid for by the American taxpayer, none of the goods produced on the Pacific Rim would reach the Rockies, much less the East Coast. The ROI on these “public projects” was just too low in the short run to justify private investment.
And that begs the question: “Were the long term economic benefits of the dams over the Colorado, the Columbia, and the Sacramento rivers, and the roads in between, sufficient to pull America out of the Depression, all else being irrelevant?” Setting aside my prejudice for eating lettuce and drinking water, I dont know.
On the other hand: “Are the current machinations of Washington DC of the same economic calibre?” Not in my wildest dreams.
Without the largesse of the U.S. Senate in giving to the railroads land that belonged to someone…Without the army corps of engineers, and forced capitalization through promised taxation…Without Eisenhauer’s interstate highway network, paid for by the American taxpayer…,
Typically, you see what government visibly produced, but there remains the unseen: what costs and sacrifices had to be made by taxpayers for government to produce these things. Furthermore, if the government had not spent that money, it would have been spent by taxpayers in other ways. Perhaps these projects weren’t worthwhile, at that time, but perhaps they would have been eventually, or perhaps taxpayers woud have spent that money on even more economically beneficial projects instead.
Admittedly, imagining the unseen is difficult, but it’s not difficult at all to say that involuntary spending is going to satisfy consumers less than voluntary spending, or that involuntary taxation is morally reprehensible. Government can do little more than redistribute existing wealth, not create it.
ganpalou, I’ve got my tarbrush out: all government action is coercion–and only a small part of it is actually justifiable coercion (i.e. to protect the rights of its citizens). Some people certainly benefit from government action, but only at the expense of others.
ganpalou, I would counter that not only would the market provide all those things, the absence of having government force them on society for political reasons — with all the subsequent waste, graft, and lowered quality — would have freed up resources for other market-based pursuits.
Sure, maybe the railroads would have reached California a bit later, but maybe a result of leaving such activity to the market would have allowed air travel to get off the ground sooner.
Who knows what might have been? It is quite clear, though, that government robs, wastes some (most) of the proceeds on its own bureaucracy, then tries to accomplish some pet political projects that come in over-budget and below-quality compared to what capitalists and entrepreneurs could accomplish once the market demands them. When government takes charge of producing things that consumers are demanding, it is simply destroying market competition to expand itself and provide stumping ammunition for incumbent politicians. When government takes charge of producing things that consumers aren’t even demanding, the robbery is that much more blatant.
Without government always doing so much harm, would today’s people have a choice of living on the moon? Maybe not, but quick-as-scramjet trips to the tropics might be possible — and standards of living would be higher for almost everyone on the planet.
In all wars there will be propaganda: http://bit.ly/191Bzz #hc09 (Via @WhiteHouse
All content Copyright Mises Economics Blog
Powered by WordPress + WPtouch 1.9.41