Re: Reject the Welfare/Warfare State

> I think that Thom was referring to the difference in effectiveness
> between "trickle down" effects and "trickle up" effects.  While both
> occur, sometimes one is more effective than the other for getting the
> economy moving or for "rising the tide".  

If by "trickle down" you mean allowing people to keep the money they earn and 
by "trickle up" you mean forcibly seizing money from one class and handing it 
to another, history has repeatedly shown which method is more effective 
at "rising the tide".  The most striking examples of crushing poverty exist 
in countries that value "income equality" more than private property.


> Generally speaking, if you give $1,000,000 to 100 families ($10K 
> each) below the poverty line, they're going to spend all or nearly 
> all of that money relatively quickly

Ignoring for now the moral hazard introduced by the redistribution of wealth, 
this scenario, like the many failed stimulus measures the government has 
already undertaken, would do nothing more than cause a short-term blip in 
economic activity after which we would all be poorer.  The idea that we 
can "raise the tide" by squandering accumulated capital is absurd.

David
www.facebook.com/bullionbrother

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot