Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John O
No one is advocating communism. You are being utterly silly, and arguing against a straw man. Transfers from market allocations involve at second order some marginal utility loss and effect on incentives. But they do not destroy the whole sum moved, and pretending they do is called lying.

If social security and medicare and medicaid were abolished tomorrow, would the net worth of the US population change in any way thereby? No.

Does either add a scrap of value to anything? No.

Do both at the margin and in the long run, involve some loss of efficiency and incentive? Sure. But nothing like the destruction of $1.35 trillion a year, which is the amount spent on them.

Does the prospect of spending that sum every year and the amount rising every year with inflation plus, mean that the American people are bankrupt? No, because they aren't paying that sum to Martians.

Stop deliberately confusing people about the differences between the effects of transfer and transfer accounting, and outright expense or immediate loss.

80 posted on 02/03/2010 9:43:25 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: JasonC
No one is advocating communism. You are being utterly silly, and arguing against a straw man. Transfers from market allocations involve at second order some marginal utility loss and effect on incentives. But they do not destroy the whole sum moved, and pretending they do is called lying.

You are apparently reading but not understanding. Stop thinking like a government economist and start thinking like a private citizen. Forcibly tranferring money from me is almost ALWAYS a total loss to me.

If social security and medicare and medicaid were abolished tomorrow, would the net worth of the US population change in any way thereby? No.

But my net worth would drastically improve as the loss caused by these programs would end. It would be a huge gain.

Does either add a scrap of value to anything? No.

Ending those programs would add much value to my life as I would get my money back (which is now forcibly transferred from me).

Do both at the margin and in the long run, involve some loss of efficiency and incentive? Sure. But nothing like the destruction of $1.35 trillion a year, which is the amount spent on them.

100% of the money forcibly taken from me to pay for these programs is loss.

Does the prospect of spending that sum every year and the amount rising every year with inflation plus, mean that the American people are bankrupt? No, because they aren't paying that sum to Martians.

It does however mean that many productive Americans are worth far less than they should be because the fruit of their labor is stolen from them and returns no value to them.

Social entitlement programs ALWAYS cost more than they are worth. They always result in a net negative to society. Subsidize lazy, worthless poor people and you get more lazy, worthless poor people. They are sinks to society, not sources. They do not contribute a penny but they suck up loads of capital.

Stop deliberately confusing people about the differences between the effects of transfer and transfer accounting, and outright expense or immediate loss.

All economics is local. When you finally realize that you will understand what I am saying.

Transfer is the same exact thing as loss. If I no longer have it, and receive no value for it, it's a loss to me. Understand?

83 posted on 02/03/2010 11:02:50 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson