I understand the
dream of the common socialist. I was, after all, once a Democrat. I
understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism,
though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same). I understand
the drive and the desire to help other human beings, especially those in dire
need, and the tendency to see government as the ultimate solution to all our
problems. That said, let’s be honest; government is in the end just a
tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set
of principles. Unfortunately, what most socialists today don’t seem to
understand is that no matter what strategies they devise, they will NEVER have
control. And, those they wish to help will be led to suffer, because the
establishment does not care about them, or you. The establishment does
not think of what it can give, it thinks about what it can take.
Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game which allows them to
quarry the favor of the serfs, and nothing more.
There are other powers at work in this world; powers that have the ability to play both sides of the political spectrum. The money elite have been wielding the false left/right paradigm for centuries, and to great effect. Whether socialism or corporatism prevails, they are the final victors, and the game continues onward…
Knowing this fact,
I find that my reactions to the entire Obamacare debate rather muddled.
Really, I see the whole event as a kind of circus, a mirage, a
distraction. Perhaps it is because I am first and foremost an economic
analyst, and when looking at Obamacare and socialization in general, I see no
tangibility. I see no threat beyond what we as Americans already
face. Let me explain…
Socialism Is Failure
A country that feels
the need to socialize has, in my view, already failed culturally. It is
an open admission by the public that they are unwilling or unable to take
responsibility for their own prosperity. If a society is not able to
function in a healthy economic manner without the force of government (an
abstract entity often manipulated by corrupt ideals) resulting in the creation
of artificial and precarious balance using fiat stimulus and overt taxation,
then the people of that country are not remotely independent and self
sufficient. That is to say, only a nation filled with pathetic overgrown
children would actually need government to enforce mandatory “charity”,
welfare, healthcare, etc. A truly healthy society supported by strong and
self sustainable individuals would not beg to be parented by government.
If a country is so unbalanced as to stoop to socialism, then its ailments
already extend far beyond anything government (even good government) could ever
hope to cure.
Obamacare, its
tentative application, and those who blindly support its introduction in the
U.S., are an example of a weak people groveling for handouts they do not work
for nor deserve. Socialism is defeat. It is a waving of the white
flag by a society and the trading of that culture’s liberty for the illusion of
fiscal security. It is the act of an adolescent and naïve populace
groveling for an allowance from their “motherland”.
If one wants to
consider what a socialized America would actually be like, why not examine the
track record of the EU, a group of nations which have dabbled extensively in
the principles of collective centralization and various levels of socialism,
including the extremes of communism and fascism (and yes folks, both are
derived from a socialist/collectivist foundation, despite what
pseudo-intellectuals and propagandized academics will try and tell you).
What success have
they accomplished in the course of their Utopian endeavors?
Well, more than
half of the states of the European Union have already reached debt to GDP
ratios well beyond the limit required to retain membership:
Several countries,
including the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, are all in the midst
of severe debt crisis. The Euro itself is on the verge of disintegration,
and in all likelihood, the EU charter will be reexamined, and mutated into
something completely different to what exists today. The central bankers
will blame European countries and their “insistence” on maintaining sovereign
control over their finances, but ultimately, it is not sovereignty that
strangles the EU, but its ridiculous supranational status which is entirely
misapplied and has created a state of interdependency that has weakened every
member nation to the point of disaster.
It should be
painfully clear to anyone considering socialism as a viable option for America
that this kind of system requires fiscal discipline and a vast amount of
SAVINGS. Notice I say “savings” and not “money”. Money is a
carnival ride; an illusion of wealth that can be printed from thin air.
Savings is an actual concrete storage of real capital, an ongoing surplus of
manufacturing and production capability resulting in the stockpiling of working
credit and ample employment. Most of the countries of the EU do not have
such savings, and never did. In fact, most European countries have
operated for decades on a loss. They have never been able to live with
the direct and indirect investments of outside players. Because of this,
EU countries are utterly unable to keep up with the grand concepts of
socialism, and have buried themselves under the crushing debts generated by
entitlement programs.
America is no
different.
Forget Universal
Healthcare – The U.S. Is Bust
There has been a
pervasive delusion amongst pro-socialism movements in the United States that we
are the “richest country in the world”. They claim it is “absurd” that
the establishment system does not pay for our healthcare with such riches at
its disposal. They consistently rant about Canadian Healthcare and its
record of universal treatment. The problem is, they ignore the details…
Canada’s national
debt stands at around $1.1 Trillion (officially). Canada’s population
sits at around 34 Million. America’s national debt stands at around $15
Trillion (officially) and our population sits at around 313 Million. The
two countries are entirely different animals. To clamor for a Canadian
style healthcare program for a country with completely opposite economic
parameters is idiocy, or lunacy, or both.
Officially, our
economy has already broken the 100% debt to GDP threshold. Unofficially,
but more accurately, the U.S. national debt sits closer to $120 Trillion.
This number accounts not only for public debt, but intragovernmental debt, and
implicit debt, meaning, the debt obligations the government has committed to
for the near future: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/trillion_the_shocking_true_size_tOxcrobUBUup9IEW3vQAhJ
I would also like
to quickly note that mainstream economists back in 2011 were predicting the
U.S. would reach 101% of GDP by 2021. It is now 2012, only one year
later, and we have already crossed the 101% marker.
Add to this the
projected costs of Obamacare ($17 Trillion in estimated long term unfunded
obligations), and what you get is a broke-ass country:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-obamacare-costs-2.6-trillion-in-ten-years/article/2500877
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-obamacare-costs-2.6-trillion-in-ten-years/article/2500877
The only factor
which has stayed the tide of a full-blown macro-implosion of the U.S. is the
world reserve status of our currency. The dollar is all we have
left. Period. But don’t count on that for much longer either.
With multiple nations, including China and Japan (our largest foreign debt
holders) quietly forming bilateral trade agreements cutting out the use of the
greenback, it will not be long before its world reserve status disappears as
well, and then, we are on our own. The private Federal Reserve can print
all they want, but if other countries no longer need dollars to facilitate
cross border trade, then what we will get is hyperinflation, or
stagflation. Obamacare only expedites this process by generated even more
liabilities we cannot cover, thereby giving the central bank even more excuse
to churn out dollars with wild abandon.
To put it plainly,
all those people who believe America is the “richest country in the world” are
living in mushroom land. We-are-broke. Bust. In the
red. In the hole. Insolvent. Our pockets have become lint
traps. We’re switching from fine Belgian beer to Busch Light. And,
we can’t all move back in with our parents like so many Obamacare proponents I
have met…
Go Ahead, Try To
Enforce Obamacare…
We-have-no-money.
Therefore, the debate over universal socialized medicine is pointless. It
is mathematically and economically impossible to implement. What the
Supreme Court says on the subject of socialization certainly matters in terms
of principle, and they have failed Americans spectacularly in that respect (or
served their globalist sugar-daddies well; however you want to look at
it). But, in terms of finance, the Supreme Court’s shocking decision
means nothing.
One of Ron Paul’s
primary arguments against the ongoing wars in the Middle East has always been
that whether one agrees with these conflicts or not is irrelevant. The
U.S. does not have the means to fund them. Eventually, we will break the
bank and the dollar to maintain our presence in the region, and thus, the wars
WILL end, one way or another. The same philosophy goes for Obamacare and
every other socializing program presented in America.
They will say that
taxation will cover the costs; but how do you raise taxes on a populace that is
growing more destitute every year. How do you take money from people if
they do not have it? This tactic doesn’t seem to be working very well for
Europe. Also, keep in mind that as population and inflation grow
exponentially, so will costs. Meaning, the taxation will have to expand
as fast, or faster, than the expenditures. This is why so many opponents
of Obamacare voice concerns over population reduction programs and rejected
care; they are an inevitable end result. When you institutionalize health
and life under the auspices of bureaucracy, you must also invariably
institutionalize death. Population and life suddenly become a numbers
issue to the state, rather than a moral issue.
They will say that
the penalties to those who refuse to participate will cover the costs of the
rest. Again, how to you take money from people that do not have it?
What if millions of people simply refuse to participate, AND refuse to pay
penalties?
They will say “tax
the corporations”, and we could, but, as the derivatives crisis has proven,
most major corporations in the U.S. are on the government take just to survive.
We cannot have corporate bailouts and increased corporate taxation at the same
time. The bailouts would have to end, the companies would collapse (as
they should, but that’s besides the point), and we’re right back to where we
started. Just like our government, most corporations also operate on
false wealth. They will not be paying for Obamacare anytime soon.
They will say that
it is all for the greater good, but since when has the establishment been
qualified to define what the “greater good” is? Is Obamacare really a
matter of conscience? Or, is it a farce flaunted about as if it is a
matter of conscience?
They will say that
people must be forced to do what is right for the group. I say, such
hubris has always led to catastrophe. Usually, it is the select
beneficiaries of tyrannical cultures that call for the might of the central
government to be wrought upon the rest of the citizenry. Not to do right
by conscience, but to satiate their desire for control. Men love
government as long as it is imposing their particular world view, and as long
as the tables never turn.
They will say that
current medical practices and costs are terrible and something must be
done. I agree. However, Obamacare is not the answer. If there
is one thing that wears thin upon my mind it is the one track thinking of the
progressive ilk who know that Obama’s healthcare initiative is a stop gap at
best, but barrel forward anyway because “at least it is something different”.
“Don’t you want to
help the poor”, they say.
Certainly. I
want to help them by saving them from the disaster that socialism will
inevitably lead to.
Principles and
existentialist debates aside, the primary economic question still remains;
where is a realistic plan to pay for this monstrosity of a program? I
have yet to see a single grounded solution to the quandary. How does one
pay for something he will never be able to afford? If there are no means,
there will be no Obamacare.
No comments:
Post a Comment