Fool's Gold
Monday, 10. July 2006, 06:20:48
When a civilization is vigorous and on the move, it often operates with a very low overhead. Since there is not a lot of vested interest, there are not a lot of regulations, and graft has not taken root yet. The society seems rich.
So, the social democrats move in. 'Now that we are rich, we can afford to feed the poor' is the line of reasoning. So, all manner of wellfare gets enacted to help these poor.
The problem, of course, is that there will always be poor because 'poor' is defined as less rich than the average by a certain significance. In other words, some group of people will always be less rich than the average and therefore poor no matter what you do.
The solution, we are told, is benefits and education to provide opportunity, all of which schemes are redistributive and only serve to pull down the middle class through inflation. They dare not hurt the rich because if they do, the whole system slides down the scale and leaves everyone where they were at the beginning.
Anyway, they pile program upon program to address the squaring of the circle, and all they achieve is a higher overhead, leading to lower global competitiveness. In the end this makes nearly everyone poorer, which they try to blame on globalism, capitalism or terrorists, never realizing or specifically repressing that it is their own failed policies that made everyone, including those they meant to help, much, much poorer.
The truly free market lifts all. The socialist market can lift only a select few and even then not very high. As I've said before, socialism works until the food runs out.
So, the social democrats move in. 'Now that we are rich, we can afford to feed the poor' is the line of reasoning. So, all manner of wellfare gets enacted to help these poor.
The problem, of course, is that there will always be poor because 'poor' is defined as less rich than the average by a certain significance. In other words, some group of people will always be less rich than the average and therefore poor no matter what you do.
The solution, we are told, is benefits and education to provide opportunity, all of which schemes are redistributive and only serve to pull down the middle class through inflation. They dare not hurt the rich because if they do, the whole system slides down the scale and leaves everyone where they were at the beginning.
Anyway, they pile program upon program to address the squaring of the circle, and all they achieve is a higher overhead, leading to lower global competitiveness. In the end this makes nearly everyone poorer, which they try to blame on globalism, capitalism or terrorists, never realizing or specifically repressing that it is their own failed policies that made everyone, including those they meant to help, much, much poorer.
The truly free market lifts all. The socialist market can lift only a select few and even then not very high. As I've said before, socialism works until the food runs out.
You must be logged in to write a comment. if you're not a registered member, please 
