Debt, wealth redistribution, and welfare are not “economic drivers”

Another liberal is on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal claiming that the new health care law known as “ObamaCare” (a term that has now been embraced by the Administration) will spur New Mexico’s economy on to new heights.

Our own Dr. Deane Waldman has previously outlined the myriad reasons why the new health care law is a bad idea, but the real issue is that this whole discussion highlights the fact that many on the left simply don’t understand how economies develop and grow.

Government spending of any kind is at best a “zero-sum game.” It represents the proverbial pie that is to be split up among various groups (redistributed). This can be done more or less efficiently (usually less), but there is no innovation inherent in government spending (when is the last time government created something like the IPod?). Innovation, the development of new products and efficiencies is what drives our economy and our living standards. It is derived from the human mind, builds on the ideas of previous innovators, and thus improves our living standards.

Government cannot do this. Therefore, leftist claims that we’ll develop our economy based on trillions of additional federal debt, wealth redistribution, and putting more people on welfare are simply hot air.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 Replies to “Debt, wealth redistribution, and welfare are not “economic drivers””

  1. Amen…Did government develop new energy technologies, such as fracking…NO!

    The Federal Government can’t even come up with an “Energy” plan!!! How many decades do they really need? But hey, if there’s potential legislation to introduce and expand ”moral hazard” into the nation’s steal industry, its real estate markets or even worse, its health care industry, then Big Brother’s all over it…essentially ensuring that the “put will be in the money” for future failure of associated markets and the companies that operate within them, and giving rise to a whole new boondoggle of bailouts. We’ve seen this pattern demonstrated time and time again. The Fed’s throw up road blocks and distortions, and the private sector innovates efficient solutions to negate their damaging policies, while creating entirely new markets…in spite of an entire army of government “Wet-Nurses” monitoring and stifling their every move.

    Its so simple that you would think that even the most ignorant liberal would be able get it, but they refuse to even consider or debate economic freedom, which should lead us all to the understanding that these policies and economic concepts are more about individual egos and the pursuit power than legitimate solutions, or concern for America’s citizens. Case in point: the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ObamaCare mandate that requires, and taxes/penalizes those who don’t, everyone to PURCHASE health care insurance…yet another dangerous and slippery slope for an entire nation and its citizens. It’s a little remenicent of the Patriot Act…really, does anyone trust any Administration, Republican or Democrat, with this kind of unrestricted power.

    Given what we’ve seen over just the last three years time, do we really believe that Big Government wouldn’t extend a potentially positive ruling on the “Commerse Clause” into other areas of our lives.

    And, back to the concept of moral hazard, as it relates to subsidized health care insurance, on a nationalized basis. Guaranteed there are those who are formulating plans to predict, time and profit from a future failure of the effected health care markets and companies as well…let’s just call them future Democrat donors…Completely unethical!!!

    With the current arguments being made before the Supreme Court, we are in fact witnessing a pivotal moment in this nation’s history.

  2. How does innovation have anything to do with people needing to be able to have access to healthcare? Are the many working poor excluded from profiteering health insurance plans supposed to innovate their way to getting seen in hospitals? If the wealthiest Americans would redistribute the wealth themselves by taking some social responsibility and investing in activity that would benefit America, then the government wouldn’t need to do it for them. It’s because the rich minority, the CEOs of transnational corporations who have no loyalty to the country that birthed them and made them rich, have instead been doing nothing but sucking up resources, poisoning the air and water, outsourcing jobs, cheating people out of their savings, and lavishing all the profits on themselves that calls to make the economy even more free for these vampire corporations completely falls flat to anyone who knows their history. The record of just the past few decades has proven Neoliberal economic dogma false, and now more Keynesian, FDR-type policies are having to bring back equilibrium after another catastrophic crash allowed by deregulation of business.

    1. I disagree with nearly everything that you write here, but exactly what massive deregulation are you referring to? Sarbanes/Oxley was supposed to stop financial fraud and it did not represent deregulation at all. Bush piled on the regulations.

      1. One perfect example of the deregulation I’m talking about is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. If one piece of legislation could be blamed for the still current financial crisis, it would be this one, passed in 1999 under Clinton in order to allow the merger of Citicorp with the Travelers Group to form Citigroup, and undo the Glass-Steagall Act which had been in effect to prevent savings banks from entering into speculation activities, and led to the creation of the “too big to fails.”

        1. Possibly, it did have an impact. There are arguments on both sides. But, government policies had an even greater impact. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, easy money policies after 9/11, the Community Reinvestment Act, and incompetent regulation by the federal government (just because you have a regulation, doesn’t mean the bureaucrats enforce it correctly).

          Anyway, for every supposed deregulation that “caused” the crisis, there are many more government policies that had an impact. The “free market” did not cause the economic crisis or at least it didn’t do so without a major push from the government.

    2. Innovation has precisely everything to do with the level, quality and accessibility of healthcare of this or any other country vs. another. Why is it that so many prefer to come to the U.S. for cutting edge treatments and care…that’s going out the window with ObamaCare. Less development, higher costs, equal misery for all.

      Excluding anyone treatment, at any U.S. emergency room, is against the law, and has been for some time now…the American taxpayer picks up the tab for that, but the safety net is in place.

      You do know that the wealthiest Americans pay the bulk in taxes, employ the most people and invest the most rationally and efficiently in activities that continues to advance the wellbeing of the nation as a whole, don’t you? And, just so you know, they certainly don’t need any more of the government’s “help” to do it.

      Now, if you’re referring to CEO’s and companies such as Bernie Madoff, Jon Corzine, Countrywide Mortgage, Goldman Sachs, GM, Solyndra, etc., then I may just have to agree with you on your general “scorched earth” point. However, I would also point out that these were a small handful of individuals and companies that all shared one thing in common…they all had “friends” in high places, such as the upper echelons of big government.

      Keynesian dogma was actually PROVEN (not just stated) false by Milton Friedman, and others…Take a crack at “Monetary Trends in the United States and the United Kingdom, Their Relation to Income, Prices, and Interest Rates, 1867-1975”. The man actually left behind a wealth of data and knowledge for all of us to share.

      Finally, “FDR type policies” are exactly what got us to this point. It’s very simple; every system has a its strengths and its weaknesses. And every strength can be made a weakness. Just as Democracy’s weakness is mob ruling entitlements (Ref.: Voltaire), Capitalism’s major weakness is the introduction of false incentive (i.e., Moral Hazard). The Democrats have figured this out, and they’ve realized profits from it.

      Think of it as a system. For example, a railroad track can be thought of as a system for the conveyance of trains, carrying goods…make sense so far? Now, if one should want their trains to route and deliver efficiently, at the lowest cost to the customer and highest profit for the shipper, then one would ensure that the most efficient and quickest routes are taken during the course of each engine’s journey. However, if one wants only to sabotage an entire load, then they need only to divert within a relatively small section of route/track. Maybe it’s done at night-fall when few are paying attention, and maybe the “railway junction” is set to send the train completely off of its track. The junctioneer might be in league with the “broker/buyer”, who may have calculated a larger profit from the “Insurance value” of the freight, than that of the actual freight itself. You’re absolutely right in that imbalances do lead to catastrophic failure, but let’s make sure that we understand exactly who acted in the role as the “Railway Junction”, the “Broker/Buyer”, and the “Insurer of Last Resort”…for the sake of history.

      Everyone now knows that the catastrophic crash was created by “Railway Junctioneers” such as, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others. Moral Hazard was their means to imbalance, and the timed and rapid, record breaking, expansion of government insured sub-prime mortgages was their method of ensuring that the train would go completely off of its rails and natural route. There were of course many “broker/buyers” of the freight…some were insured at varying levels on their cargo (Goldman Sachs), and others were not (their clients). AGI was one of the more prominent “insurers” of the value/devalue. Unfortunately, and ultimately, it was, and continues to be, the American taxpayer (the Insurers of Last Resort) who had to insure/bailout the insurers like AIG.

  3. The truth of the matter is that ObamaCare was never about our nation’s health care. It is all about control and power over us. Plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.