
Originally Posted by
jimboe7373
It's not necessarily the government, but because of human nature there does have to be a mechanism in a society that will keep ALL or MOST of the money from going into a ever smaller amount of hands until there is ultimately collapse. Without some kind of outside force to provide some kind of balance, an increasingly few people wind up with almost all or all of the money and wealth, it's just human nature and it's happened over and over again throughout history- the 19th century Robber Barons being a case in point. Government is usually that mechanism that provides some kind of rules or guidelines to keep these conditions from happening or from softening the damage from when they do happen. If you put a head of lettuce into a gerbils cage, the gerbil will eat the head of lettuce until he dies, he does not know how not to eat food that is in front of him, even though doing so will ultimately kill him. Many people and companies are the same way with regards to money- they will continue to make as much of it as possible even when doing so may ultimately leads to the destruction of the company and possibly even the economy. Government has evolved to help protect that dynamic from occurring. You remove government in all shape and form and you will either have a complete strongman dictatorship or complete chaos and a broken state. Either way, you will not have very many people having a very nice life.
340,000 million people acting solely out of self-interest, which is what you seem to be proposing will not and has never worked out very well in the long-term. So, your quote of government knowing how to spend your money better than you do-is partially true. You are however making it black and white and all or nothing- the better statement would be that government knows how to spend PART of your money better than you do WHEN it comes to making the ENTIRE economy and society sustainable. So, quite simply- a ratio is found by which people will still have the incentive to work and be productive but from which a portion can be taken that will go towards various items for the public good and the long term sustainability of the country- ie. infrastucture, research and development for future technology, social programs, economic incentives when necessary and hundreds of other things. Every effort must be made to encourage able bodied people to contribute and to limit fraud and abuse- both my low moral individuals and powerful corporations. An intelligent ideogically and special interest free debate has to be held on where best to put those dollars to maximize sustainability and innovation and improvement to the system must be a constant goal. I think many people believe they earn their money in a vacuum, without someone having money to spend, products don't get bought- you have do a deep analysis and see who's spending what. If Mitt Romney was paying 25% in taxes those years he paid 13% and 15%, there would have been many millions more of dollars floating around the US economy that would have created jobs, incurred further tax revenue and stimulation for the economy. Those millions of dollars sitting in a Cayman Island bank account really don't too much in aiding or stimulating the US economy. It's kind of a question of liquidity, greed being what it is, many people will hoard money- if enough people hoard enough money and keep it from circulating it will do severe damage to the economy- is it their right to hoard? I don't know. Is it more rationale to install laws and restrictions that limit the amount of hoarding so that the economy is more vibrant and able to grow and create more opportunity and wealth, so that even those who are hoarding can make even more money? I sure think so. Does the gerbil have the right to eat the whole head of lettuce and kill itself? does it make sense for a responsible pet owner who is aware that the gerbil will unintentionally kills itself by eating the whole head of lettuce to limit the amount of lettuce the gerbil can eat in a day?.
I lived in a tax-haven country for quite awhile and can assure you the amount of money there BEFORE the crisis was staggering. The amount of money in these places now is drastically reduced because of new policies by the US government to make them less attractive and harder for the countries in question to process. There are also huge penalties for not disclosing what is where and that has also brought a lot of money back home or subject to US taxation.
At this point in time, it's not a question of the government being a smarter investor or spending money better than individuals- it's a mixed bag. Individuals should be rewarded for their efforts and be compensated for innovation and productivity, they should be able to keep a large part of what is earned by their individual efforts. At the same time, anyone who has decided to live in a society (as we all have) has to be subjected to rules and policies who's primary goal is to keep that society functioning at as high a level of short and long term sustainability as possible. There must be a ration between the two where both aspects are able be sustainable with the components of growth, innovation and improvement as a top priority. If either of these two dynamics is out of proportion, the whole system will suffer and there will be problems and ultimately collapse. You can argue all you want about too much government waste and spending and taxes being too high- but at the end of the day the reality is that larger and larger sums of money are going into smaller and smaller hands- we have one of the highest ratings of inequality of wealth in the world as well as in our history and it is not sustainable. It's not a question of ideology, of what's fair or right- it's a question of too many dollars in too few hands and the mechanisms that generate the economy in our system falling apart as a result.
As to your comments regarding Solyndra etc.- While a huge failure, it is not at all all bad. That money provided lots of economic stimulation and created lots of jobs and purchases. That money was much more effective in stimulating the economy than the equivalent amount that was at the same time sitting in an off-shore bank. Also, please be aware that Solyndra was part of a program that was designed to innovate and improve our energy technology sector- the plan was and is to make a bunch of investments into risky and technologies and companies that could easily fail or may produce stellar results. We didn't bet the whole economy on it- we took a sensible amount and took the chance. The one company that may come up with something ground-breaking will pay for ten thousand Solyndras. Even with the ones that fail we learn something. The human race and technology is moving forward and the fastest pace in our history- if you choose to stand still, you will fall very far behind. Moving forward requires taking chances and taking chances increases the risk of failure.
Bookmarks