Saturday, 1 August 2009
Deficit spending IS 'trickle down' economics
(Image: Ronald Reagan is the figure most commonly associated with 'trickle down'/supply side economics. Considered a hero in some circles, a villain in others, kind of like Thatcher. But the point is, 'supply side' and 'capitalism' aren't the same thing.)
They claim that tax cuts for the rich constitute giving them money, and that the ostensible purpose of the excercise was that the wealth would flow down to everyone else, but it was actually a huge scam because the rich kept their 'ill-gotten gains'. (Just providing insight to an alternative perspective)
What's wrong with that?
The reason I find that to be an absurd framer on how an economy should be, is firstly because it contains some big presumptions, which I will get to, but secondly because it isn't based on individual rights and sovereignty.
Each person is born free and equal. They ought to be able to do as they wish (yes it's called "freedom"), save in cases of actions which violate the sovereignty of others.
This philosophy doesn't mysteriously stop working when we look at trade. Each individual is sovereign, and nobody has special right to pre-emptive control over the actions of others, government or otherwise. Why should they? What is so grave that we must suspend freedom in the name of safety?
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson
Myths about capitalism and 'trickle down'
Frankly I don't see why it is that some anti-capitalists link the two terms, but let's deal with this distortion.
"Trickle down" is a name given by detractors to the theory of supply-side economics. And they are right, in my opinion, to be detractors of that theory, which indeed has been a justification for a lot of theiving; though it isn't a core reason for our economic problems, which are more fundamentally caused by having fiat money systems, central banks, and the fraud of generating artificial growth by inflating the money supply.
I guess it goes back to the phase of deregulation and tax cutting during the 80s, which might cause capitalism to be associated with supply side economics and 'trickle down'. Hence, capitalism is theft, right? Of course, I just demonstrated some supremely wise logic and totally overlooked the fact that capitalism is based on voluntary trade and not fraud, coercion or theft. In fact, capitalism is the complete opposite of theft. (Socialism, however, is based on theft.)
Deficit spending/stimulus IS 'trickle down'
Ironically, the people who believe capitalism failed and so we need to rescue our economy with huge deficit spending, bailouts, etc. are cheering for a 'trickle down' philosophy, the very thing they say is capitalism. I can't believe I didn't point this out before! Think about it. We're giving huge amounts of capital to banks, in the hope that it will trickle down and get to smaller businesses, thus in theory stimulating the economy. What a joke!
(Image: The Onion tells us what the US bailout money is going towards. The thing is, their guess is as good as ours, with all the secrecy)
Of course 'trickle down' economics is merely a nice way of saying 'give everything to us and we might give some of it back', but whatever it is, it certainly isn't, wasn't, and never will be capitalist in any way.
We shouldn't be 'trickling' wealth anywhere, that's not a proper function of government; morally it is a gross violation of individual sovereignty and property rights, and pragmatically it is always abused to allow a wealthy, influential few to steal more.
And remember ladies and gentlemen, capitalism is when we look after the rich, and socialism is when we look after the masses. Ahem.
- ► 2010 (647)
- How to bring down Obama: a primer
- Nothing new about Ron Paul's message
- Healthy eating bad, UN will tell you what to eat
- TV/Media effects on brain
- Even vaccine developers don't want H1N1 vaccine!
- Preparing students for a "New World Order"
- The big vaccine question
- Lies about a British 'baby boom'.
- Daniel Hannan Reason.tv interview
- Sticks and Stones
- Judge risks neck to expose Fed's bailout records
- Feel good screenshot of the day
- Well maybe there are too many people...
- Can we save the economy by printing money?
- Under The Government of Banks
- Are you mad about the Lockerbie bomber release?
- They don't like the ObamaJoker image...
- What'd I Miss?
- Tea Partying the media doesn't want you to see
- Controversy on my blog!
- Casual debunking: US Army 'urban' uniforms?
- Tamiflu is a costly placebo, a Big Pharma fraud
- Complaints over Iran trial seem hypocritical
- Violence at US townhall over healthcare
- "The conservative hijacking of libertarianism"
- How to defeat the Occult Nutjobs
- Report your fellow citizens, for money
- FKN Newz: Swine Flu Vaccine is Pish
- Pushing forced flu vaccines around the world
- "Juba" the infamous Baghdad Sniper
- Deficit spending IS 'trickle down' economics
- ▼ Aug 2009 (31)
And You Tell Me There's No Suppressed Technology?
It's another of those 'conspiracy theories' that good citizens don't notice. Imagine the standard of living if all the secret technology was released to the public...we'd be "free and independent" as JFK said! No more poverty anywhere! Can you imagine being sick enough to withhold such technology from society just to maintain your position of control? (Bearing in mind that we don't know just how much technological capability is being withheld, because, duh, it's secret.) What did Nikola Tesla really develop?
Individual Liberty? But that's "selfish"!
No, we need to look after each other voluntarily without having a government do all that at gunpoint. Sounds absurd at first but soon you realise that the reason it sounds so is because of the very unfree nature of our current existence. Envision greater possibilities! Ok, some kind of massive wake-up would be needed before this kind of free, responsible, uncontrollable society could emerge. And that's what we are seeing day by day in the world - a massive waking up of the previously enslaved masses (including myself I must add!)