Originally Posted by
Paul Or Nothing II
You believe productive should subsidize the less productive & unproductive otherwise they're "evil rich hoarders", that's what liberals say as well
You carry this fallacious notion that there's any fundamental economic difference between
1) government taking $X from productive & giving it to unproductive
2) productive doling out $X in charity to the unproductive
NO, the fundamental economic effect is the SAME, that capital is gone,those goods/services are gone, poof, it's spent & it gave nothing back to the society in return, & since those goods/services were consumed unproductively, society as a whole is poorer with less capital & goods/services------- again, why shouldn't the unproductive have the "moral obligation" NOT to consume more than they produce?
And you keep believing that those who won't do that (aka evil rich hoarders) aren't benefitting the society, when in fact is that they DO, by conserving capital & purchasing-power, by investing, creating jobs & goods & services & prosperity can only be achieved by producing more & more goods & services
I HAVE answered it indirectly many times, when I say I don't care if you dole out everything you've got so long as you've earned it thru voluntary interaction, same holds true for all the "chariters", if you want to give then it's your business, just don't be ignorant to not realize how the "hoarders" are benefitting the society
You talked about the retarded girl & African poverty, etc When one has capital, one can choose to spend on the girl OR one can invest it in some profitable company in Africa,
which will make those among them who wish to be productive have jobs & the goods/services they produce will be NET ADDITION to the global supply of goods & services & thereby have a systemic effect of lower prices ---------- I know exactly where I'll be putting my money, now, I don't expect everyone to make the same choice BUT what I absolutely DETEST is when people, incapable & unwilling to learn economics & incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE blaming those choosing the second option & reviling them as "evil rich hoarders", when in fact, they're only helping the society in a different way that socialists don't want to understand
(By the way, it doesn't even have to be directly invested in Africa, production of more goods/services anywhere will be add to the global supply & many POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE anywhere will be better off because of it one way or another due to lower prices)
Again, you keep ignoring one of the most fundamental principles of the market about "opportunity cost"
You ignore that since the goods & services are LIMITED, when you choose to subsidize the unproductive (of any kind) but you'll likely be doing so at the expense of others who may wish to be productive but there mayn't be enough capital to hire them because it was spent on unproductive, not to mention, since that is unproductive spending, the whole society is poorer, with less goods/services, higher prices & the POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE are poorer than they otherwise would've been
Again, this isn't necessarily an argument against charity as such but against the narrow socialist belief that "evil rich hoarders" don't benefit the society
Connect With Us