The word of the day is stimulus. Politicians enjoy talking about stimulating the economy with this or that subsidy or redistribution scheme. It's like listening to Ben Roethlisberger talk about the importance of touchdown passes, or (to head in a less exalted direction,perhaps) a car salesman talk about the importance of buying the $800 undercoating package or the $2000 warranty. Redistributing money is what politicians do. They earn their living by putting their hands in our wallets, grabbing wads of cash, and giving it to someone else -- minus their commission, of course. Wouldn't expect them to steal from us for free, would you?
There's just something about that word -- stimulus. It sounds like the name of the Roman guy who forced the Christians out into the center of the Coliseum with a trident. "They don't seem to want to meet the lions. They need Stimulus!"
And, frankly, that's about what it amounts to in the current mess. The definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same dumb things, expecting different results. If government takes a trillion bucks out of the taxpayers' hands and gives it (minus their commission) to the same people who lost a trillion bucks, what do we expect them to do with the money? Use it smartly? Prudently? All of a sudden? Why start now?
Or -- here's a good one -- politicians giving it back to the taxpayers as a rebate. Can government save someone with blood transfusions (minus their commission) from himself? Why not just reduce taxes? Well, there's no government overhead charge in having people keep their own money. "Here's the IV hose, boys, just stick this end in his neck and the other end in his arm, and don't forget to siphon some of that off for tonight's party, Vlad." (The difference between a vampire and a Congressman is that while one's a fearsome, blood-sucking, undead parasite, the other one turns into a bat.)
I spoke not long ago, before the Obama inauguration, with the proprietor of a florist's shop (getting flowers for my wife, naturally), and she mentioned that it had been a good day for her, sales-wise, but a rough month. Then she brightly announced, "But I think things will improve when Obama takes over!"
Sometimes, I have enough self-discipline to avoid politics when talking with strangers. But this time she brought it up. I responded, "I don't think socialism is the right direction for our country."
It was clear from her facial expression that she didn't think running-dog capitalistic nay-saying was the right direction, either. But I was a paying customer, so instead of reporting me to the PC police, she said cheerfully, "Well, he's going to have some very smart people helping him make those important decisions!"
I hate to kill enthusiasm, but sometimes I feel it's my duty: "So did the Soviet Union. The greatest mathematicians and physicists in the world are Russian. Chess is their national sport. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't that they didn't have enough smart people."
Her expression went from hopeful to grim. Mission accomplished. It's what I do. My card says, "Database Administrator -- Trombonist -- Professional Killjoy."
It's not the people, it's the system. Socialism rewards failure. Actually, it subsidizes cronies and political allies, and good performance does not need a subsidy.
On the other hand, capitalism rewards success, but, even more importantly, it punishes failure -- which is about the best we can hope for in this sinful, fallen society. In a free-market system, you can't just keep losing billions of dollars, whether on sub-prime loans, or half-baked e-businesses, or tulip farms -- sooner or later, someone stops you from losing even more money (usually your creditors and the sheriff). But as we are sucked more and more into the socialist vortex, what will be rewarded more and more is failure: failure to make solvent loans, failure to invest money wisely, failure to make cars that Americans want to buy. Highly politicized failure. Politicians make economic decisions not for economic but for political reasons. Always. And always for a fee.
It's like P.J. O'Rourke said: "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." Whee. If you don't like their driving, stay off the sidewalk.
So here comes that Roman guy with his trident, and you know what it's aimed at. And now you know his name.
Stimulus wrecks.
There's just something about that word -- stimulus. It sounds like the name of the Roman guy who forced the Christians out into the center of the Coliseum with a trident. "They don't seem to want to meet the lions. They need Stimulus!"
And, frankly, that's about what it amounts to in the current mess. The definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same dumb things, expecting different results. If government takes a trillion bucks out of the taxpayers' hands and gives it (minus their commission) to the same people who lost a trillion bucks, what do we expect them to do with the money? Use it smartly? Prudently? All of a sudden? Why start now?
Or -- here's a good one -- politicians giving it back to the taxpayers as a rebate. Can government save someone with blood transfusions (minus their commission) from himself? Why not just reduce taxes? Well, there's no government overhead charge in having people keep their own money. "Here's the IV hose, boys, just stick this end in his neck and the other end in his arm, and don't forget to siphon some of that off for tonight's party, Vlad." (The difference between a vampire and a Congressman is that while one's a fearsome, blood-sucking, undead parasite, the other one turns into a bat.)
I spoke not long ago, before the Obama inauguration, with the proprietor of a florist's shop (getting flowers for my wife, naturally), and she mentioned that it had been a good day for her, sales-wise, but a rough month. Then she brightly announced, "But I think things will improve when Obama takes over!"
Sometimes, I have enough self-discipline to avoid politics when talking with strangers. But this time she brought it up. I responded, "I don't think socialism is the right direction for our country."
It was clear from her facial expression that she didn't think running-dog capitalistic nay-saying was the right direction, either. But I was a paying customer, so instead of reporting me to the PC police, she said cheerfully, "Well, he's going to have some very smart people helping him make those important decisions!"
I hate to kill enthusiasm, but sometimes I feel it's my duty: "So did the Soviet Union. The greatest mathematicians and physicists in the world are Russian. Chess is their national sport. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't that they didn't have enough smart people."
Her expression went from hopeful to grim. Mission accomplished. It's what I do. My card says, "Database Administrator -- Trombonist -- Professional Killjoy."
It's not the people, it's the system. Socialism rewards failure. Actually, it subsidizes cronies and political allies, and good performance does not need a subsidy.
On the other hand, capitalism rewards success, but, even more importantly, it punishes failure -- which is about the best we can hope for in this sinful, fallen society. In a free-market system, you can't just keep losing billions of dollars, whether on sub-prime loans, or half-baked e-businesses, or tulip farms -- sooner or later, someone stops you from losing even more money (usually your creditors and the sheriff). But as we are sucked more and more into the socialist vortex, what will be rewarded more and more is failure: failure to make solvent loans, failure to invest money wisely, failure to make cars that Americans want to buy. Highly politicized failure. Politicians make economic decisions not for economic but for political reasons. Always. And always for a fee.
It's like P.J. O'Rourke said: "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." Whee. If you don't like their driving, stay off the sidewalk.
So here comes that Roman guy with his trident, and you know what it's aimed at. And now you know his name.
Stimulus wrecks.
Posts
2 comments:
This piece offers a slightly different point of view... Communicator II: Judgment Day.
I thought you'd enjoy this ...
Obama is the Democrats' Great Communicator, our Ronald Reagan. It's fitting that his highest priority will be reversing the tax and spending priorities Reagan enshrined as a new American compact almost 30 years ago, and reviving the notion of government as an engine of capitalist growth -- not merely the safety net provider, but the catalyst for organizing our public resources around what makes the economy strong. We've been arguing at the margins during these last two years of pain: Government should regulate more, or less. Tax rates should be higher, or lower. But there's a dangerous civic illiteracy in our country about what the larger role of government in a modern economy is, or should be, and I don't think Obama will ultimately prevail if he doesn't start to take it on.
and this...
Democrats know the Republicans are wrong. Little children know they're wrong. Cats and dogs know they're wrong. But somehow this week, unbelievably, Obama and the Democrats seem to be losing the spin war. There are the worrying poll numbers. And there is the Washington Post report that Senate Democrats don't have the votes to pass a stimulus bill yet, at least not with the 60 votes that would rule out a filibuster. In this economic crisis, with 2.6 million jobs lost last year and thousands more lost in every news cycle, what does it take to create the urgency and responsibility to get this done?
Who'd a thought Karl Marx was right after all?
> "...and reviving the notion of government as an engine of capitalist growth -- not merely the safety net provider..."
Ain't characterization grand? Who knew that the idea of government as an engine for capitalism is a "notion", while the idea of governent as the safety-net provider is somehow more that a mere notion?
As for me, I'm trying to figure why the lady believes she has correctly characterized conservative philosophy on the subject. The idea of capitalism is not that the government is supposed to be an engine for growth, only that we will get growth if the government can manage to get out the way.
> "But there's a dangerous civic illiteracy in our country about what the larger role of government in a modern economy is, or should be...."
That's just a fancy way of saying, "Anyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda is stupid."
> "Democrats know the Republicans are wrong. Little children know they're wrong. Cats and dogs know they're wrong."
So the liberals are getting a lot of advice from Fido and Fluffy these days, are they? Well, why not? My cat sounds more intelligent than this particular liberal.
> "But somehow this week, unbelievably, Obama and the Democrats seem to be losing the spin war."
And with her spinning with all her might.
> "In this economic crisis, with 2.6 million jobs lost last year and thousands more lost in every news cycle, what does it take to create the urgency and responsibility to get this done?"
Well, they could start by taking out all the items that look more like standard-issue pork and leave in only the ones that are vital. If this is a vital bill, then show me the vital portions, and let's pass just those portions. It's hard, e.g., to believe that the entire U.S. economy is going to fall unless we give $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts, or another $20 billion to the food stamp program.
> Who'd a thought Karl Marx was right after all?
I actually give Marx a little credit for having a brain. I'm not convinced the author of this drivel qualifies.
Post a Comment