There has been a great deal of information in the Canadian old media these days about the State going into deficit spending.  They laud the benefits about getting the economy and the media is rife with which the pros and cons of each fallacy, while failing to mention of course that government is a parasitic class that leeches away the productivity of others.

What we have here is the ’seen vs. unseen’ fallacy at work.

Government produces no wealth. They take wealth from others and redistribute it to others under their monopoly of the monetary system and violence. Let me illustrate with an example:

A and B (usually a government committee, hence A and B) put their heads together and decide what C shall be made to do for D. All eyes are on how D benefits. Endless political commentary and punditry abound around D. A and B is the State. C is the person who does productive economic work and pays taxes extorted via A and B and D is the recipient of the swindled money from C, less the cut that A and B squander on themselves or their favoured insiders.

What is not seen is the economic benefits of what C might have done if C was allowed to retain his money and spend it as they saw fit. Existing businesses would not receive C’s money anymore or future businesses may not come into existence if C had retained their money to demand it. In otherwords, current and future businesses effectively subsidize D, favoured by A and B.

A and B have another mechanism to swindle C; devalue the money s/he has in their pockets by printing new currency into existence to finance D. This new currency has an inflationary effect on C’s savings for today, tomorrow, or passed onto C’s children. Government sponsored inflationary attacks on C by the State/Banking cartel rob C in such a manner that not one in a million C’s can diagnose. C pays for D via inflation, not taxation.

The most skilled statistician cannot tell you what millions of C’s would have done, today or tomorrow, had they been allowed to retain their money (or the value of it) to spend into the economy.

C is the forgotten man.

What if D is a poor child and C the wealthy one?  Ah, the s0-called seductive cooperative argument.

D could also be Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, a nuclear bomb, putting a man on the moon, tanks, guns, armies, a gun registry, an adscam, bailouts for zombie companies, bailouts for banking industry and the endless army of unproductive bureaucrats.

C might be a poor child forced to redistribute what little they have to D. The wealthy child.

It is endless once we delegate our non-right to steal from each other to a third party.  The State.

Advertisements