MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Redistribution’

Doug Casey on the Fed to Address Inequality And Climate Change

Posted by M. C. on December 25, 2020

Doug Casey: The Fed is one of the main creators of inequality. The Establishment, the Deep State types, and the other cronies who hang around the government are closest to the fire hydrant of money spewing from the Fed. They get their fill of it before any trickles down to the “little people.”

The solution to the problem is to abolish the Fed. But it’s so entrenched and so central to the corrupt system, that’s impossible. At least short of a monetary collapse—although a monetary collapse is in the cards. But, at a minimum, the Fed shouldn’t try to act as a social engineer.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-fed-to-address-inequality-and-climate-change/

International Man: Recently, the calls for the Fed to add a third mandate to address racial and economic inequality have grown louder.

Will we see a redistribution of wealth soon?

Doug Casey: It seems the movement towards black “reparations” is building momentum. These things always start small, testing the water, then grow when nobody either laughs at them for being stupid or decries them as evil. Most Americans are now too intimidated and confused to do that, however.

It’s similar to MMT. A year ago, the notion of Modern Monetary Theory was too outrageous a notion for a sensible person to bother considering; now, it’s practically public policy.

And, incidentally, when I say “black,” I don’t capitalize the word, as very recent politically correct fashion dictates. Capitalizing it just emphasizes and accentuates racial differences—as do most “woke” practices.

It’s another sign of the mass insanity that’s sweeping the world. Like almost everybody wearing masks when walking down the street, or even bicycling in the countryside. Not to mention locking down the whole country, practically the entire world, like a prison. It’s quite ironic to me. In the past, I’ve often joked that the Earth was a prison planet. Now it’s no joke.

Anyway, the idea of reparations is even more insane, but it’s taking off. It’s the destructive, racist idea of affirmative action on steroids.

It’s one genuinely crazy thing after another, like NASDAQ requiring listed companies to have at least two board members of so-called minority groups, including one non-white person and one with a sexual aberration.

Movies are expected to have the same kind of composition now. You see it to a large degree in commercials on TV. When I watch the boob-tube, I feel like I’m the only straight white male left in the US.

The discrimination against Asians is equally criminal, especially when it comes to getting into college. If you’re a smart and hard-working Asian, you now have to be even smarter and harder working to compete.

These PC fools are making accidents of birth into defining features of existence. The only good thing about the trend is that these people may be overreaching and will self-destruct. Hopefully, that will happen before they destroy society itself.

International Man: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has spoken in length about the Fed’s interest to address economic inequality.

Ironically, the one institution that is single-handedly responsible for destructive monetary policies and money printing of epic proportions plans to do more of the same to “solve” the very problem they created.

What are your thoughts on this?

Doug Casey: The Fed is one of the main creators of inequality. The Establishment, the Deep State types, and the other cronies who hang around the government are closest to the fire hydrant of money spewing from the Fed. They get their fill of it before any trickles down to the “little people.”

The solution to the problem is to abolish the Fed. But it’s so entrenched and so central to the corrupt system, that’s impossible. At least short of a monetary collapse—although a monetary collapse is in the cards. But, at a minimum, the Fed shouldn’t try to act as a social engineer.

It certainly shouldn’t give money to blacks just because they’re black in the form of reparations or for any other reason. The notion is criminally stupid. All exchange must be mutual and free. If it’s not, it breeds resentment for both the giver and the receiver.

Free stuff, like welfare and free government housing, has already destroyed black families and black individuals. Places like Cabrini-Green and Pruitt-Igoe are monuments to government planning. If the Fed gets involved in passing out more free money, it’s only going to cement the average black more solidly to the bottom of society and create more race antagonism.

Well-positioned blacks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and hundreds of others who are getting rich by virtue of being black are all for it, of course. There’s big money in disguising race-baiting as virtue signaling.

International Man: Recently, Joe Biden announced that he would nominate former Fed Chairman Janet Yellen for US Treasury Secretary. In her first remarks, Yellen spoke about her plans to address racial disparities and inequality.

Is there a trend developing here where racial and economic inequality has become the justification for dangerous monetary policies?

Doug Casey: Race has become a justification for practically everything today. Deep State types in general, and the Democrats in particular, emphasize race and gender differences, which does nothing but aggravate the situation.

This nomination is an excellent deal for Yellen, who’s moved from being a nothing nobody academic to Fed Chair, and now Treasury Secretary. By the time she finishes her term in office, she’ll be a centimillionaire—the usual drill, six-figure speeches, seven-figure book contracts, fat directors fees, consulting fees, and insider investment deals. She’ll do well for someone who has zero business experience and has detracted hugely from the world’s real wealth.

She’s a model for the kind of people who want to go into government to become rich and famous.

International Man: Fed chairman Powell has made countless remarks about the need for the US central bank to address climate change.

What is going on here?

Doug Casey: It’s a good question.

How can they address the so-called problem of climate change? Climate change has been going on since the Earth came together 4.5 billion years ago, and it will continue on its own path, primarily influenced by the sun and secondarily by things like volcanism, cosmic rays, and peculiarities of the planets orbit, long after mankind has gone.

But destroying the economy by printing up more money certainly isn’t an answer to climate change. However, I’m sure that what’s on Powell’s mind is making money easier to get for things like windmills and solar panels. This is more state direction of investment. It was a disaster for the USSR and every other socialist and state-directed economy and will be for us as well.

You’ll notice that the Chinese and other Asian economies don’t indulge in this kind of politically correct investing. It’s a major reason why they’re on the way up, and we’re on the way down.

Janet and Jerome’s excellent adventure in climate engineering won’t end well.

International Man: With climate change and racial inequality, the Fed is creating all sorts of new ridiculous pretexts to justify whatever it wants to do. It would be comical if the consequences weren’t so destructive. What do you think comes next?

Doug Casey: At this point, the Federal Reserve, which most Americans barely even know exists, has become extremely important to everybody.

It’s now the main source of government income—greater even than the income tax—and this is likely to continue. Agencies like the Fed grow when they have unlimited funding. But it’s more than just mission creep at this point.

We saw mission creep during the Vietnam war and all other wars. Now the Fed has been enlisted to fight the war on poverty, the war on racism, and global warming. The problem is that war is the health of the State—but a catastrophe for society.

The Fed started out as essentially a clearinghouse for banks; it was instructed to maintain the value of the currency. It has totally failed at that mission since its creation. The US dollar was stable from 1789 up until 1913 when the Fed was instituted. Since then, the dollar lost has about 97% of its value, and the degeneration is radically accelerating.

Now the Fed is supposed to ensure full employment, racial and gender equality, and sunny days in addition. The next abomination will be Fed Coin, a digital dollar, which will eliminate all privacy from financial transactions.

I don’t think anything can turn the situation around at this point. The only thing you can do is become as wealthy as possible to insulate yourself.

The next step will be something resembling World War III, probably with China. The US will turn into a police state, which in many ways, it was during World Wars I and  II.

It’s going to be much more serious this time around.

Editor’s Note: Economically, politically, and socially, the United States seems to be headed down a path that’s not only inconsistent with the founding principles of the country, but accelerating quickly toward boundless decay.

In the years ahead, there will likely be much less stability of any kind.

That’s exactly why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the Raging 2020s.

Click here to download the free PDF now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Want Less Police Brutality? Write Less Laws

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2020

The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced?

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/want-less-police-brutality-write-less-laws/

by

One of the most perplexing displays of cognitive dissonance this year is the strong support for a large state can be found within the various protest movements that are targeting the issue of law enforcement misconduct. Logically, groups opposing police misconduct should also be strong supporters of the libertarian ideology. However, this does not appear to be the case. This movement, oddly enough, has quite a bit of overlap with support for gun control, the welfare state, and more regulation. The central organization, Black Lives Matter, is a fully Marxist entity.

Socialism, Marxism, communism, and other ideologies revolve around the strong or total domination of the state in everyday life. The state, as defined by Murray Rothbard in Anatomy of the State, is an “organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.” The way the state maintains authority within its jurisdiction is with the application of laws.

The Nature of a Law

A law is defined as “a rule of conduct or action prescribed…or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” It is a set of rules that either obligate or forbid action with a penalty for failure to comply. While it may sound good to have a set of rules that individuals must adhere to and penalties to incentivize compliance, the nature of those penalties is where we run into issues.

While laws may have formally designated penalties for noncompliance, those penalties can be best viewed as a minimum sentence. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with any given law is execution of the perpetrator. While this sounds like hyperbole, it’s important to understand why this is the case and how law enforcement must resort to this.

Take a case of counterfeit money. The sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting money are a sixteen-month minimum and in some states a fine with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years. However, what if the accused refuses to show up in court? The court could then find the perpetrator guilty in absentia and apply the sentence and fine. Should the person refuse to part with their resources or report to prison, the court would then order an enforcement agent to collect the accused. This is also what could happen should the accused refuse to show up for court itself. And should the accused resist this arrest? This is where grievous bodily harm up to and including death can occur.

If you think this is hyperbole, this is exactly the situation that led to the death of George Floyd; a twenty-dollar counterfeit bill and refusal to be taken into law enforcement custody.

The reason state agents resort to killing an accused for refusal to comply is that, despite the verbal claims to the contrary by the state itself, there is no other way to ensure compliance with laws. If the general public knows that the worst the state will ever do is send easily ignored bills in the mail for fines, then laws would never be followed and the state would collapse. Because the state is an institution of violence, all laws must be backed with violence. The state may be careful to conceal this reality, but the ultimate refusal of compliance is always a summary execution.

More Laws Means More Violence

Police brutality, in a sense, is just a matter of numbers. As the number of interactions with an enforcement agent increase, the number of instances of violent interactions will also increase. If the odds of death from a single interaction remain the same, or even decline, this can be overwhelmed if the legal system expects greater instances of interaction with the general public through the application of more laws.

This can be demonstrated by the increasing number of death by legal intervention within the baseline white ethnicity in the United States in the aftermath of the war on drugs, particularly after the 1984 Sentencing Reform ActPer a Harvard study, the rate of killings via legal intervention of whites in 1985, the year after the US government decided to get tough on crime, stood at 0.28 per 100,000. By 2005 this number had risen to 0.37 per 100,000, an increase of 32 percent.

The reason I used whites as the baseline is due to the high volatility in the black legal intervention deaths. The underlying increase in the white death rate could indicate that the improvement in the black victimization rate should be even steeper than is reported now, but the overall impact is difficult to identify with other factors overwhelming the effects.

Further evidence that more law means more violence can be found in strong statist regimes. Enforcement killings in regimes like Venezuela are significantly worse and large-scale executions have been used to ensure legal compliance in societies like Maoist China and the Soviet Union. A society that believes it can solve all of its problems with the imposition of law will inevitably find itself engaging in large-scale killings to enforce it. The more aggressive the attempt at transforming society through legal imposition, the more aggressive the killing will be.

Don’t Just Defund the Police, End State Law

This is where the cognitive dissonance with the defund police movements comes into play. The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced? If taxation were a voluntary affair, few individuals would turn a substantial portion of their annual earnings over to the state for redistribution. If gun control were a suggestion, few people would make any effort to submit to the FFL (Federal Firearms License) sales regulations.

By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers. Outlets like Vox can advocate for the creation of mobile response units and community mediators all they want; these entities are, from the viewpoint of the state, toothless without any means to initiate violence to ensure compliance with rules. Community mediators will either find themselves armed or calling on some newly created entity that looks and acts a lot like current police but is called something different to deal with a belligerent individual who refuses to follow the mandate. As anyone with a glove box filled with unpaid parking tickets can tell you, it’s easy to ignore a piece of paper with a fine on it. The state is going to inevitably need an armed, violent agency to handle noncompliant individuals.

The only way to ensure an end to police brutality is not concocting new entities with different names or, worse, focusing on the ethnic element of it, as all that does is try and argue that police violence is fine so long as it’s dished out equally along ethnic lines. The only way is to abolish the state. Without a state, there is no state law. Without state law, there isn’t a need for enforcement by an entity that operates with the language of violence. Without violent enforcement, there isn’t anyone getting killed for noncompliance.

Private structures have little incentive to kill noncompliant actors, and they are able to create stronger enforcement structures than state actors can. Social ostracizing, ejection from business groups, or a ban from a shop would have an equally strong impact compared to the threat of violence. Further, private security agencies that quickly utilize violence would find themselves undesired by customers and lose favor, especially if these agencies create the impression that they are against a particular group of potential customers.

As nice as it would be to believe that police can exist solely as a protection service, this isn’t the case. There’s a reason they’re called law enforcement and not protective services. The U.S. Supreme Court has already definitively told us that our police agencies have no obligation to protect anyone. Their only priority is enforcing the laws, and as those laws expand, the chances we’ll find ourselves interacting unfavorably with an enforcer will increase.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Governments Have Crippled the World’s Economies. Revolution May Soon Follow. | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2020

They argue that capitalism makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer and that capitalism is inherently unstable and causes recurring economic and financial crises. However, this is an entirely false interpretation. First and foremost, neither in the US, Europe, Asia, nor Latin America do we find capitalism in the pure sense of the word.

Economic systems around the world represent the interventionist system. Governments have greatly restricted the workings of the free market forces through taxes, directives, laws, and regulations. Wherever you look, what little is left of the capitalist order is under siege and gets eliminated further. A rather obvious point is the monetary system: money production has been monopolized by government-sponsored central banks, which hand out licences to privately held banks to participate in money creation that is not backed by any real savings.

Another result of a rise in the money stock is a redistribution of income and wealth among people. Not all people will get a share of the newly created money at the same time, as there will be early receivers and late receivers. The former can buy goods and services at unchanged prices. The latter, however, lose out: they can only purchase vendible items at already elevated prices.

https://mises.org/wire/governments-have-crippled-worlds-economies-revolution-may-soon-follow?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b226582188-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b226582188-228343965

The world seems to be on fire. A couple of months ago, the economic upswing was still firmly established, production expanded, and unemployment was declining. It all changed with the advent of the coronavirus or, to be precise: things turned really sour with the politically dictated lockdowns. As a reaction to the spread of the virus, governments in many countries ordered shops and firms to shut down and people to stay home. The inevitable result was a close to complete breakdown of the economic system. Hundreds of millions of people were thrown into outright despair; in India alone 120 million workers lost their jobs in April 2020.

The economic collapse sent the unbacked paper money system into a tailspin. Borrowers were unable to service their debt, and banks unwilling to roll over maturing loans, let alone extend new funds to struggling debtors. The entire credit pyramid was about to come crashing down. To prevent this from happening, governments and their central banks went “all in,” providing huge amounts of money to pay for people’s lost incomes and firms’ evaporating profits. Of course, governments do not have the money that they have promised to spend.

Central banks have started running the electronic printing presses, issuing great amounts of newly created money into the banking and financial sector and also injecting new balances into people’s accounts held with banks. In other words: as production contracts heavily, the quantity of money is rising strongly. This is, no doubt, an inflationary policy, for, if anything, inflation must be understood as an increase in the quantity of money. One possible outcome of a policy of increasing the quantity of money is price inflation: the increase in the money prices of goods and services.

Another result of a rise in the money stock is a redistribution of income and wealth among people. Not all people will get a share of the newly created money at the same time, as there will be early receivers and late receivers. The former can buy goods and services at unchanged prices. The latter, however, lose out: they can only purchase vendible items at already elevated prices. As a result, the early receivers of the new money get richer compared to the late receivers. The money injection, therefore, amounts to a redistribution of income and wealth.

The vast amounts of money that central banks are issuing to fend off the symptoms of the crisis will create winners and losers. It will make some richer, and it will make many others poorer. It does not create a win-win situation. Banks, the financial industry, big business, and governments, as well as their entourages and close beneficiaries, can be expected to be on the winning side. In contrast, medium and small business, the average employee, and pensioners can be expected to be on the losing end. If anything, the printing of ever greater amounts of money increases economic inequality.

It is no longer hard work, ingenuity, frugality, and consumer orientation on the part of the individual that determines his economic fate, but closeness to the central bank’s money printing press and meeting the requirements for receiving government favors. In times of economic expansion, opposition and protest against the social injustice that comes with money printing are subdued—most people see their slice of the cake increasing at least to some extent. A recession, however, changes that: it lays the foundation for outright opposition and rebellion.

As Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) noted perceptively:

Permanent mass unemployment destroys the moral foundations of the social order. The young people who, having finished their training for work, are forced to remain idle, are the ferment out of which the most radical political movements are formed. In their ranks the soldiers of the coming revolutions are recruited.1

Opposition and rebellion against what?

Most people these days blame the loss of jobs and the dire income situation on capitalism—the economic system in which the means of production are in private hands. They argue that capitalism makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer and that capitalism is inherently unstable and causes recurring economic and financial crises. However, this is an entirely false interpretation. First and foremost, neither in the US, Europe, Asia, nor Latin America do we find capitalism in the pure sense of the word.

Economic systems around the world represent the interventionist system. Governments have greatly restricted the workings of the free market forces through taxes, directives, laws, and regulations. Wherever you look, what little is left of the capitalist order is under siege and gets eliminated further. A rather obvious point is the monetary system: money production has been monopolized by government-sponsored central banks, which hand out licences to privately held banks to participate in money creation that is not backed by any real savings.

Sound economic theory teaches us that such a monetary system causes great trouble: it is inflationary, causes boom and bust cycles, makes the economy run into overindebtedness, and allows the state to become ever greater, transforming itself into the deep state. Indeed, there should be little doubt that without an unbacked paper money system, today’s governments could not have become as big, encroaching, and suppressive as they are. The unbacked paper money system is, so to speak, the elixir for creating a tyrannical government.

Unfortunately, those blaming capitalism are barking up the wrong tree. For all their critique of inflationary money, economic hardship and rising inequality are the direct results of governments’ successful war against capitalism, which has been replaced by a system of interventions. The free market system was replaced by a system of decrees and prohibitions, all of which are incompatible with capitalism in the true sense. Against this backdrop, the question arises: How come people put all the blame on capitalism rather than interventionism-socialism?

Of course, there is this thing called the “anticapitalist mentality.” Many people do not like capitalism, because under capitalism, those who serve consumer demand best are economically rewarded: making a profit is the result of having produced something that others want to buy. Those who are less eager to serve their fellow man must settle for lower incomes. This inevitable truth is the breeding ground for resentment, envy, and malevolence. And these emotions can be instrumentalized quite easily by demagogues.

This is exactly where the socialist ideology comes in. It appeals and caters to people’s resentments. Capitalism is declared the bad guy, the culprit of their dissatisfaction. In that sense, capitalism becomes a kind of “hate screen” against which people are encouraged to direct all their resentments. Most importantly, anticapitalist policies, the program of socialism, are praised and promoted as beneficial for the dissatisfied, to clamp down on the rich and to ensure a more even distribution of income and wealth.

No doubt the current income and wealth distribution has been brought about by interventionism-socialism rather than pure capitalism. One strategy to remedy it is to channel people’s dissatisfaction in the right direction—to make it clear that calling for less interventionism, less socialist policies, and the deconstruction of the state (as we know it today) is the way forward, not pushing the free market system off the cliff and allowing the deep state to become even bigger. No doubt this amounts to a gigantic educational task.

Much depends on making progress on this issue, as it would be a recipe for disaster if capitalism continued to be held responsible for the economic, social, and political problems that are, in fact, caused by a system that can perhaps best be characterized as anticapitalism. By bidding farewell to capitalism people put peace and prosperity in severe danger, jeopardizing the existential future of the great majority of human lives around the globe. That said, safeguarding capitalism from its destructive enemies is of utmost importance.

This is not only a time of economic crisis. In hindsight, it may also appear as a standoff between those forces wanting to push further toward socialism and those trying move back toward capitalism, and perhaps also as a time of social revolution. Hopefully a revolution against the encroaching socialism in the form of ever bigger and even more powerful governments. Hopefully a revolution in which people seek to regain control over their lives, putting an end to left-leaning ideologies, be it political globalism, interventionism, or outright socialism.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Data Show That Poverty in the U.S. Was Plummeting—Until Lyndon Johnson Declared War On It – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted by M. C. on June 26, 2019

We were winning until the government turned it into (another) war.

https://fee.org/articles/poverty-in-the-us-was-plummeting-until-lyndon-johnson-declared-war-on-it/

Daniel J. Mitchell

One of the more elementary observations about economics is that a nation’s prosperity is determined in part by the quantity and quality of labor and capital. These “factors of production” are combined to generate national income.

I frequently grouse that punitive tax policies discourage capital. There’s less incentive to invest, after all, if the government imposes extra layers of tax on income that is saved and invested.

Bad tax laws also discourage labor. High marginal tax rates penalize people for being productive, and this can be especially counterproductive for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Still, we shouldn’t overlook how government discourages low-income people from being productively employed. But the problem is more on the spending side of the fiscal equation.

The Welfare State’s Effect on the Poor

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, John Early and Phil Gramm share some depressing numbers about growing dependency in the United States:

During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged…Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016…Transfers now constitute 84.2% of the disposable income of the poorest quintile of American households and 57.8% of the disposable income of lower-middle-income households. These payments also make up 27.5% of America’s total disposable income.

This massive expansion of redistribution has negatively impacted incentives to work:

The stated goal of the War on Poverty is not just to raise living standards but also to make America’s poor more self-sufficient and to bring them into the mainstream of the economy. In that effort the war has been an abject failure, increasing dependency and largely severing the bottom fifth of earners from the rewards and responsibilities of work…The expanding availability of antipoverty transfers has devastated the work effort of poor and lower-middle income families. By 1975 the lowest-earning fifth of families had 24.8% more families with a prime-work age head and no one working than did their middle-income peers. By 2015 this differential had risen to 37.1%…The War on Poverty has increased dependency and failed in its primary effort to bring poor people into the mainstream of America’s economy and communal life. Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”

In another WSJ column on the same topic, Peter Cove reached a similar conclusion:

America doesn’t have a worker shortage; it has a work shortage. The unemployment rate is at a 15-year low, but only 55% of Americans adults 18 to 64 have full-time jobs. Nearly 95 million people have removed themselves entirely from the job market. According to demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, the labor-force participation rate for men 25 to 54 is lower now than it was at the end of the Great Depression. The welfare state is largely to blame… insisting on work in exchange for social benefits would succeed in reducing dependency. We have the data: Within 10 years of the 1996 reform, the number of Americans in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program fell 60%. But no reform is permanent. Under President Obama, federal poverty programs ballooned.

Edward Glaeser produced a similar indictment in an article for City Journal:

In 1967, 95 percent of “prime-age” men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. During the Great Recession, though, the share of jobless prime-age males rose above 20 percent. Even today, long after the recession officially ended, more than 15 percent of such men aren’t working… The rise of joblessness—especially among men—is the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century. It is a crisis of spirit more than of resources… Proposed solutions that focus solely on providing material benefits are a false path. Well-meaning social policies—from longer unemployment insurance to more generous disability diagnoses to higher minimum wages—have only worsened the problem; the futility of joblessness won’t be solved with a welfare check… various programs make joblessness more bearable, at least materially; they also reduce the incentives to find work… The past decade or so has seen a resurgent progressive focus on inequality—and little concern among progressives about the downsides of discouraging work… The decision to prioritize equality over employment is particularly puzzling, given that social scientists have repeatedly found that unemployment is the greater evil.

Encouraging Dependency

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Countries Fall into the Welfare Trap | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on April 1, 2019

Just like war. Infrastructure crumbles while we are busy building aircraft carriers that cannot launch planes.

https://mises.org/wire/how-countries-fall-welfare-trap

People like the welfare state because they suppose that it comes at no costs and provides many benefits. If people knew how much the present consumption of social benefits entails less prosperity in the future, the population would have a critical attitude towards the welfare state and politicians would have a harder time selling their fraud. Just as a society that ranks security over liberty loses both, a society that attributes a higher value to social benefits than to wealth creation ends up with neither wealth nor benefits…

Redistribution is unjust and economically irrational when it punishes those who produce. When the redistribution of income and wealth becomes excessive, the active part of the population withdraws from production and parasitism takes over, economic progress will falter und finally disappear. This way, society will impoverish, and the poor are left with less to nothing. In the end, the poor themselves will pay the steepest price of this policy because they will be the hardest hit when growth falls and the misery rise…

Without productivity gains, there is no increase in real per capita income. The labor productivity of a country determines its income level. The industrialized nations must get out of the whirlpool of welfare spending, public debt, and weak economic growth. Lifting the purchasing power of salaries requires higher productivity. Not more state control is the way to higher productivity but less regulation, less intervention, and less redistribution.

Be seeing you

lab rat

Trapped

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Truth About Denmark and Socialism: What Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Understand About the Country

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2018

So, Denmark first became rich, and then introduced the government programs that make up the welfare state. The huge increase in government spending has been accompanied by deep structural problems, which has made it necessary to reform the Danish economy and welfare state. It can hardly be claimed that introducing the welfare state made Denmark rich; rather it was the other way around. Denmark first became rich, and then the authorities began to redistribute some of the wealth

It’s that”redistribution thing“. $tealing from you to give to someone who (the government thinks) deserves it more..

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/08/the-truth-about-denmark-and-socialism.html

By Otto Brøns-Petersen

…The first thing to recognize is that Denmark, like the other Nordic countries, has quite a free-market economy, apart from its welfare state transfers and high government consumption. The Nordic countries tend to get rather high rankings on global measures of economic freedom. Denmark is thus number 22 on the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index and number 11 on the index published by the Heritage Foundation.1 Denmark ranks at number 3 on the World Bank’s Doing Business report, which assesses the ease of doing business around the world.2 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bernie, Hillary and That Redistribution Thing

Posted by M. C. on May 27, 2016

Democrats like Obama are in favor of “that redistribution thing”.  Theft of your hard-earned money via taxation then giving it to someone who did not earn it.  Like warfare/welfare recipients and Hamid Kharzai (in shrink wrapped pallets).

What is the difference between the above and Bernie’s excess superdelegate votes being redistributed to Killary?  Why is the Bern complaining?  Democrats are just following the progressive plan.

We reap what we sow.

Be seeing you

phoca_thumb_l_tcobb34

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Missed Education Opportunity

Posted by M. C. on July 31, 2011

There has certainly been a lot of discussion regarding the state’s reduction in its redistribution of our taxes towards education. It has had its affect in the Erie area. I see a wonderful opportunity that is being missed. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Education | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »