Yes... Socialism
B said: "My ideas involve going back to some of FDR's programs before WWII, reviving something similar to the CCC that would rebuild our infrastructure repairing roadways, bridges and state and national parks, etc... Yes, this would be a government-supported program."
Yes dear, this is socialism. This is government control of the production and distribution of goods and services. Sorry to burst your bubble.
B said: "Would this eliminate poverty? No way. Would it help to hire many who are unemployed and stimulate the economy? Absolutely."
Right now, the unemployment rate is a tad under 5%. This isn't the Great Depression.
Steve (a.k.a. The Evil Genius) said: "Those kinds of programs were used to address rampant unemployment rates of 25% and more on a temporary basis. Our unemployment rate is 5%. That's full employment. The poor do not exist because there are no jobs. They exist because they lack the skills, motivation, and/or opportunity to stop being poor. Furthermore, because of redistributionist entitlements, many of the poor are not motivated to go dig ditches for the government for minimum wage or less because they can bring in that much from government assistance. Ah, you say, so pay them a higher wage. More socialism. Now you have to artificially inflate the wage to motivate workers to take the job. And how are we going to pay for these higher wages? More redistributionism. The government will have to bloat the wage above the market level turning the project into an economic loss. It will have to be subsidized with more taxpayer money. Now you've sent more people who were on the borderline of poverty into poverty level because you confiscated more of their money to give it to someone else. Oh, you say, you'll only confiscate from the rich. But now the rich will shelter more of their money or they will stop being rich, so there will be less investment in the private sector economy, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages. Now you have created more unemployed and sent more people into poverty."
That's pretty good, Mr. Brenneis. If I'm not mistaken, didn't you major in economics at High Point Univ.???
Yes dear, this is socialism. This is government control of the production and distribution of goods and services. Sorry to burst your bubble.
B said: "Would this eliminate poverty? No way. Would it help to hire many who are unemployed and stimulate the economy? Absolutely."
Right now, the unemployment rate is a tad under 5%. This isn't the Great Depression.
Steve (a.k.a. The Evil Genius) said: "Those kinds of programs were used to address rampant unemployment rates of 25% and more on a temporary basis. Our unemployment rate is 5%. That's full employment. The poor do not exist because there are no jobs. They exist because they lack the skills, motivation, and/or opportunity to stop being poor. Furthermore, because of redistributionist entitlements, many of the poor are not motivated to go dig ditches for the government for minimum wage or less because they can bring in that much from government assistance. Ah, you say, so pay them a higher wage. More socialism. Now you have to artificially inflate the wage to motivate workers to take the job. And how are we going to pay for these higher wages? More redistributionism. The government will have to bloat the wage above the market level turning the project into an economic loss. It will have to be subsidized with more taxpayer money. Now you've sent more people who were on the borderline of poverty into poverty level because you confiscated more of their money to give it to someone else. Oh, you say, you'll only confiscate from the rich. But now the rich will shelter more of their money or they will stop being rich, so there will be less investment in the private sector economy, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages. Now you have created more unemployed and sent more people into poverty."
That's pretty good, Mr. Brenneis. If I'm not mistaken, didn't you major in economics at High Point Univ.???
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 10:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home