There is no free in liberty.


Sunday, October 31, 2010

Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12) - Diving beyond Debt and Morality...


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Mel Watt and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Mel Watt does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Mel Watt's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."
How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.

Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Mel Watt finds a way through the use of situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Mel Watt to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Mel Watt, a grade school economist.


No comments:

Post a Comment