🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3obhl6$5a7@fdcap2.ap.dg.com>,
Philip Young <young@bunyip.ap.dg.com> wrote:
>In article <3o8fen$9uh@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:
> 
>|> Leaving the implications that social programs are a money sink?
>

>Why?  Because the poorer you are, the lower your tax rate.  Transfer
>money to the poor, and very little of that finds its way back directly
>to the public purse.  Poor people don't save much (savings -> lower

Increasing the contents of the public purse (government) is really not
the goal.  Isn't the goal increasing the purse of a whole bunch of
*individuals*?

>interest rates -> lower prices, more jobs, lower deficit) and don't
>invest much (investment -> wealth creation).


>In general, programs which are palliative (feed the hungry man) are, as
>you put it, a "money sink".  They can be worse than no program at all,
>since the hungry man now has no incentive to care for himself.  What

>You, and we, have a debt problem because our governments, in their
>zeal to redistribute wealth, have neglected wealth creation; so we

Government can not create wealth. By there actions they can
permit, or not permit others to create wealth.

To see this you need to find out what wealth *is*. Money is not really
wealth. It is simply a great book keeping method for keeping track
of wealth. How do you know if you have *created* wealth? Wealth
is what people want. Chunks of the Berlin Wall are created wealth.
But the rocks in my driveway aren't. The wealth created is the
happiness (It's all about the "Pursuit of Happiness") one gets by
possessing the chunk. Is a candy bar wealth? If somebody wants it, it is.

But how do we measure how much wealth a thing is? By how much someone
is willing to give for it. Dollars are the way we measure that around
here. How else can we? We could all stand around and say how
much wealth I create when I go to the bathroom, but we don't know
until someone is actually willing to part with something of theirs
in favor of what I produced.

The purpose of government isn't to produce things for others to
buy. The things it produces are not measurable. They may be things
that some folks want but we have no clue as to how much wealth
was generated because it was created with tax money, not voluntary
money.


>have less to redistribute.  Having eaten the seed corn, we wail and
>gnash our teeth; but let's not pretend that this situation has come
>about because of spending on investments for the future, such as the
>space program. It's the neglect of such investments (and here I include

It hasn't only because the things you are talking about or small
compared to social spending.

>science R&D in general), and the lack of embedded structural solutions
>in social programs, which has brought us to this unhappy pass in the
>first place.

We have a tremendous debt because we didn't spend *enough* money!!?

>|> 
>|> Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to 
>|> mars? 
>
>Poppycock!  Hardware, and maybe wetware, to Mars; the money stays here.
>It goes to the parts suppliers, the systems integrators, the 1001
>companies who do business with the space program.  It means jobs to
>the people who work in those companies.  It filters through to the

But don't you see. That is the same as giving it away to the poor.
(OK, we get neat stuff, folks have to work hard to get the money,
And the folks who get it get larger sums than the poor so they can
invest more.)


All the things you listed are just work-fare. We could have these
guys digging ditches and filling them back up and the money
would still provide jobs and go to parts suppliers and such.

>universities who work on the scientific instruments, and helps to

Sort of like "spinoffs" well why not make your intent
spinoffs in the first place?

>provide a better education for the students.  When you're old enough

Why not spend it on education in the first place?

Repeated from above:
>you put it, a "money sink".  They can be worse than no program at all,
>since the hungry man now has no incentive to care for himself.  What

This is true. But putting our best and brightest to work on a program
that people don't want enough to voluntarily pay for can be worse
as well.

Instead these people could be working toward better airplanes faster
computers, higher yielding crops, medical cures, or something
unknown altogether. It's as if the government gauranteed a $10 per hour
job to folks for picking up trash. Sure they would be producing
something we all value (note: we don't value it *that* much)
but they would produce a lot more *real* wealth if those folks worked
at McDonalds for $6 an hour.

>to attend one, should you choose to, you might see some of this
>activity if you're in the appropriate faculties.  In the meantime,

Man, you really don't like this guy, do you?

>-- 
>Philip R. Young        |             young@bunyip.ap.dg.com


-rex-
-- 

Work phone: (317) 451-0358  (8-322-0358)
Internet:   c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com   (Ick. It's suppose to be ahw.)