Some months ago, as I was heading into Giant Eagle, a “minority” woman asked if I had a grocery list. She said she would buy my groceries, if I would pay her 75% of the tab. I said no, and she immediately dropped her fee to 50%. I told her to get lost. She screamed every name in the book at me as I went into the store!
75% is a ripoff. The going rate is ALWAYS 50 cents on a dollar. She was trying to rip you off.
Allow me to brush off my rusty Keynesianism 101 and show you how, if you had accepted the deal, it would have made the shady transaction 'stimulative':
- Dr. Alternate Pachysandra ends up buying $100 worth of groceries for $50, making for $50' worth of spending. Unfortunately, this $50 would have been spent by Dr. Alternate anyway - making for no net spending. Moreover, Ms. Screamie won't report it so it won't show up in the accounts.
- Ms. Screamie takes her food stamps and buys $100 worth of food. Net spending: $100.
- After Dr. Alternate and Ms. Screamie part the ways, the latter takes her $50 and buys smokes. Net spending: $50.
Total spending: $0 + $100 + $50 = $150.
Now, to the revenue side. The grocery store got $100 in revenue. The smoke shop got $50. Dr. Alternate's $50 spend on his groceries by giving Ms. Screamie the cash won't show up in the accounts, so it adds $0.
[Side comment: Yes, I'm aware of Bastiat, but I'm calculating like a Keynesian.]
Total spending by government at the margin: $100 for the food EBT. Total addition to the national-income accounts: $150. Food-stamp multiplier: 1.5
Ah, fraud. Wotta stimulation!
“She screamed every name in the book at me as I went into the store!”
They’re feeling Obama’s power.
I sure couldn’t live around this garbage.
You should have done it at 50%, at least you would have gotten some return for your taxes paid
I would not be surprised if a great number of welfare women worked off the books as maids, nannies, etc, and traded groceries with their employers for additional cash.