By Simon Black
This past Friday, Barack Obama was at a Minneapolis-area Honeywell
plant touting his economic recovery credentials to cheering disciples. One
of the excited faithful was a young boy, fifth-grader Tyler Sullivan,
who took the day off from school to hear the President speak.
The President was full of the usual bombast about how Congress needs
to work with him to 'build a strong economy', and how he wants to
get $3,000 to everyone in the American middle class so that people can
go out and buy 'thingamajigs'.
Naturally, the crowd cheered. It was the typical sort of gross misunderstanding of economic prosperity that you see from politicians... and most people at this point.
People these days think it's a great idea when the government
sprinkles money around the middle class, and love the idea of politicians
'coming together' to build a better economy.
In reality, when people hear talk about politicians 'building
an economy' they should run away like a scalded dog.
Throughout history, a lot of other politicians have also tried
building an economy-- it's called central planning, and it just doesn't
work.
From Diocletian's failed 'Edict on Prices' in 301 AD in which the
Roman emperor tried to fix wages and prices, to Stalin's Soviet Union,
to Mao's China, to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the verdict is obvious:
economic growth is better left to the private sector, not government.
The other important mischaracterization was this idea of the economy getting better from people spending money, in this case, the government sending everyone $3,000 to buy stuff.
Most people seem to think this is a good idea, even the ones
who consider themselves to be educated about economics (having
been brainwashed with deeply flawed Keynesian fluff).
The truth is that a nation is like an individual... and individuals
do not become wealthy by going into debt and consuming. They become
wealthy by saving and producing.
Yet there was the country's exalted leader energizing the crowd
with talk of sending them free money to spend. And as I mentioned, one
of them was fifth-grader Tyler Sullivan.
The President's even shook Tyler's hand, commenting that he would
offer to write an excuse note to pardon
the boy from skipping school.
On the exact opposite end of this spectrum is the case of 17-year
old Diane Tran, a Houston area high school student who has had to take
on two jobs in order to support herself and her siblings after her
deadbeat parents divorced and skipped town.
Tran reportedly misses a few days of school per month so that she
could hold down her jobs, yet somehow still found time to complete
her schoolwork and make the honor roll.
She was arrested by local officials for truancy and hauled in front
of the 'Honorable' Lanny Moriarty who threw
the girl in jail so that he could show everyone that he's 'tough on
truancy.'
Tran has aspirations to become a physician someday, and she
is despondent now that her new arrest record may tarnish her chances
of being accepted to medical school.
For the sake of brevity, I'll skip commenting on how worthless
the government-managed education system has become, and simply point out
the obvious dichotomy:
- Boy skips school to cheer the President as he extols debt
and consumption: OK
- Girl skips school to work, save, and support her family: NOT OK
- Girl skips school to work, save, and support her family: NOT OK
These examples are the most obvious signs yet that, like the tax
and regulatory frameworks, those who mindlessly support the
political process of debt and consumption are rewarded, while those who
produce and save are punished.
Such is life now in the Land of the Free. Have you hit your
breaking point yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment