It's like the 20th century never happened - Charles Dickens would be familiar with your economic theories!
Seriously, do you realise how victorian you sound? I fully expect your next post to be an essay on the benefits of the workhouse system, including a paragraph on how orphans can be utilised as a cost effective labour source. On 1/28/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > If you think that Keynes is about the government handing out money > > than say handing 22 billion to the insurance industry, > > I'm not saying Keynes said that you are! ^^^^^^ See ^^^^^^ > > You keep saying that the gov't is "handing" money to corporations. > You just said it again. Then you go on to say that, instead, the > gov't should give money to poor people or those who choose not to earn > more. > > Well, the gov't doesn't make money, therefore it's not their's to give. > > Let's look at minimum wage. There the gov't is taking money that a > business has *earned* and forcing them to *give* it to a worker > despite the fact that, on the open market, the worker's choice would > be worth less. > > Here's the problem: If the gov't takes money from earners and gives it > to those that choose not to earn, then everyone will choose not to > earn. I've got a case study for you called Cuba. > > Gel has pointed out how much higher the literacy rate is and how much > lower the crime and poverty rates are. That's true. But name the > last new medical innovation to come from Cuba. How about their > alternative energy research? Surely they've made strides in > technology? No? Oh. > > Why not? Because when the gov't takes from producers and gives it to > non-producers, the profit incentive moves from innovation to > dependancy. That's why in Cuba you have people busting ass to be > bellman at the local American hotel - so they can have access to > American dollars. > > Now, let me address your points about ENRON or Haliburton. In a > nutshell, it's the same as above. When the gov't takes money from > people who've earned it, say Caribou Coffee, and gives it to a > corporation that hasn't, say Haliburton, then they're encouraging > dependency. > > SUMMARY > The question is not who should gov't give money to, it's who should > gov't be taking money from? And the answer is nobody. If you didn't > earn it, you don't deserve it, be you individual or corporation. > > That's not to say that the gov't can't use tax dollars to give people > the *means* to earn (education). > > From what I can see you agree with me, you're just not taking the > final step and saying that all gov't reallocation of wealth is bad > given that all citizens have equal access to capital and education > which we do but didn't in Keynes' time. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194906 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
