Vampire Economics

Pages: 1 2

Americans, take heed, a vampire prowls among you. The redistributive policies and out-of-control spending of the current Administration, if it is not already obvious, are threatening an economic bloodletting of the first magnitude. Indeed, the social welfare state, part of the progressive Western experiment in political and economic egalitarianism, is foundering wherever we look, and yet it continues to be endorsed and promoted by an out-of-touch ruling political class. Our leaders—or far too many of them—are clearly in a state of denial, unable to give up a cherished illusion despite a mounting fact attack. Facing up to the truth does not demand profound economic thinking, only a modicum of common sense, which is clearly in short supply. Nor would a bandaid here and a bandaid there stop the bleeding.

Plain common sense tells us that, in the long run, so-called “democratic socialism” doesn’t work for a very simple reason: it must be constantly hiking taxes on a shrinking productive base while awarding exemptions to a constantly growing non-productive class. Canadian author William Gairdner, co-founder of the Civitas think tank, estimates that in the current welfare state only one third of the population constitutes the producing sector; another one third is affiliated with government, either clerically or contractually, and the remaining third consists of government dependents. Thus two thirds of the modern “social democratic” state is dependent for its maintenance on a dwindling minority of economic generators. Worse, Kenneth Minogue of the London School of Economics warns that once the tipping point of 51% of public clientage is reached, decline must inevitably set in.

What we have here is an iron recipe for creeping revenue depletion and societal decay. Wealth-creating and job-producing enterprises either shrivel due to rising costs or locate elsewhere to more favorable cost-effective regions, which leads to growing unemployment. A hyper-inflating bureaucracy—which must be paid for—to administer and distribute an ever-lengthening skein of entitlements and government programs—which must also be paid for—will eventually, as Margaret Thatcher said, run out of other people’s money. We can now see what the welfare state yields, writes Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament: “burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth and rising unemployment.”

Ultimately, a society predicated on single-payer medicare, cheap daycare, maternity and paternity leave, shorter work weeks, paid mensual vacations, mandated green energy, early retirement, special interests subsidies, public sycophancy, in short, the contemporary version of bread and circuses, cannot run on fumes. As Hannan points out, America is now imitating the European model, “expanding its government, regulating private commerce, centralizing its jurisdiction, breaking the link between taxation and representation.” The future looks increasingly grim. For when the day comes that the parasite has devoured the host, that is the day the system collapses.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    No, we should spend more so more people can have those nice government jobs. Those government jobs are what keeps this nation running, not productive jobs that actually make things. Government jobs help to regulate the economy so rich guys dont make to much, cause that is what made this nation great,,,,,, poor people

  • Don Coder

    Remember that the American voters know all this, they chose the socialist platform with full knowledge, and they like what they are getting. Democracy is not a stable form of government. It self-destructs as we are now demonstrating.

  • Jim_C

    I hear lots of "boogity-boogity" warnings, but few specifics outside the typical bromides. Clearly, the call is for austerity. But WHO gives up WHAT? It's all well and good to make these generalist pronouncements against your favorite liberal chestnuts–but you must admit things get hairy where the rubber meets the road.

    The reality is that we have been in debt as a nation for every single year since our founding. The very first controversy was how to deal with the debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. All nations must have a means of borrowing to fund priorities. The only issue is servicing the debt and the slope of the economic recovery. Keynes figured this out in the 1930s and created the economic principles and justification for increasing public debt in downturns, decreasing it in prosperous times. What we do when thing are going well is to give back to wealthy taxpayers instead of investing in ourselves, our country, our future and our infrastructure.

    • PhillipGaley

      Much to the contrary in three prongs, Keynes figured out how to mix and speak truth and falsehood in oblique terms, as Bernanke has spoken among other things of his concern for the presence of speculators in the commodities markets, that, he's afraid that, they will cause inflation, or, that, rising prices will cause inflation, while thus avoiding expression of the truth that, the presence of speculators or occurrence of rising prices is because inflationary tendencies are in effect.
      And to the second fork, "The only issue is [NOT] servicing the debt and the slope of the economic recovery.", rather is it the fidelity and lack of fidelity in which the public debt is managed—As for example, through hiring and benefits, is primary and first benefit directed to serve the best interest of the public servants or to advance or promote increase of the bureaucracy—to rule from apparent servant-hood—is the citizenry being hoodwinked?
      Also—and, as Trevelyan understood for his masterful "The Origin of the National Debt", and far and away against the self-serving Keynesian think-tank type—the reality is that, the purpose of national debt is not economic management by "increasing public debt in downturns", but so that, any nation can advance economically into the imagination of its scholars and doers, . . .

    • nightspore

      And there are no limits on this process?

  • William_Z

    One of Philip K. Dick’s best quotes is: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” And this is why the left lives in a continual illusionary life, to leave that illusion, would mean that they’d have to accept the fact that Marxism and its associated ‘isms’ is a failure, so don’t expect them to enter into reality, with kicking and screaming, and much therapy, which in the case, is called ‘working for a living.’

    • Maxie

      The essence of postmodernism is that objective reality and objective truth do not, indeed, cannot exist. This leftist nonsense was fabricated to excuse the failure of European socialism post WW II. This "thinking" allows, even encourages, the Left to just make it all up as they go. So for the Left "history" starts new every day and its many dismal, deadly failures are quickly erased from memory.

  • StephenD

    I am no economist but Jim C says something that highlights the different approaches. He says "What we do when thing are going well is to give back to wealthy taxpayers instead of investing in ourselves, our country, our future and our infrastructure."
    As if the monies taken in by the government is theirs to "give back." Our taxes are supposed to be for running the government not for their discretionary use to "invest." I'll invest my own money as I see fit, thank you very much.
    The other approach seems to be that the Govt. is our care giver and all that we have belongs to it. We are only “allowed” to keep any money by virtue of its benevolence.
    Frankly, I’d rather take care of myself and give the Govt. just what it needs…nothing more.

    • Jim_C

      Please allow me to quote this "Marxist:"

      All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

      • StephenD

        But Jim, I don't believe that Franklin was talking about the Govt having the right to "invest" those funds in any way they see fit. "The welfare of the public" which I have no problem supporting (Just what the Govt needs but no more…remember?) but what "benefit to society" am I to support? Should the folks among us that make a better living have to pay more of a percentage than everyone else? Should those funds now be used as "investment funds" by the Govt? No one denies we are responsible in a civilized society to support the marginalized. But that is no excuse to take more than is necessary is it?

      • Maxie

        And who is it that decides what is necessary and what is superflous and by what right and authority do they make judgement? As always the devil is in the details – something the Left, in its theoretical, emotional abstractions, has never understood

      • Liberty Clinger

        Benjamin Franklin was referring to the Constitution which enumerates certain powers for Federal Government for the purpose of public welfare. All powers not enumerated in the Constitution fall to the States or to the people under the tenth amendment – that includes the power to provide and regulate retirement benefits (Social Security) and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare). Notice that the powers actually given to Federal Government under our Constitution (such as the post office, post roads and the military) serve all Americans equally. Many of our Federal Laws are un-Constitutional because they are not enumerated for Federal Government in the Constitution, and because they do not provide for public welfare on an equal basis. Robbing Peter (middle class) to pay Paul (proletariat class) is un-Constitutional Marxist class struggle which benefits a lazy non-productive class (and the self-serving Marxist ruling class) while draining the productive middle class – which inevitably decreases the ranks of Peter and increases the ranks of Paul – the end result, as Marx falsely said: a "dictatorship of the proletariat" – Marxist (Orwellian) Newspeak for dictatorship of the Marxist ruling class.

      • Liberty Clinger

        “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Benjamin Franklin

        “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

      • Liberty Clinger

        When Karl Marx advocated “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” he failed to account for the facts of lower human nature. The ordinary man desires to labor creatively for his property in the pursuit of happiness. The laboring man who desires the fruit of his own labor is not a greedy man – it is, rather, a natural sign of self-ownership and earned self-esteem. The proletarian man does not desire to labor, but desires the fruit of labor of the laboring man – that is greed. Karl Marx ignored or concealed the fact that the proletariat class becomes the greedy class – along with the Marxist ruling class – greedy for the labored-for property of the hard-working middle class. When the non-disabled man fails in his sacred duty to labor creatively he becomes needy for property, and must either beg or steal property to satisfy his need – or he can vote for Marxist-type government to do the dirty deed through unjust, excessive taxation of the laboring man. The needs of the lazy man are manifold – so under Marxism the laboring man must pay according to his ability – he must be forced to pay – he must pay without limits – because the lazy man has unlimited needs.

      • Liberty Clinger

        As George Orwell observed, Marxists are the Pigs of Animal Farm. The Marxist Pigs are enthralled with the idea of government (themselves) controlling the fruit of the laboring animals which is placed into a communal pot under their exclusive control. The Marxist Pigs control communal property – they are the commune-ists. The Marxist Pigs, after gorging themselves with a lion’s share, require all the “little animals” to approach their communal pot, tails wagging, in order to receive their leftover rations; and they must lick the hand that feeds them. Marxist government encourages the lazy proletariat animals to relax in the barn while the others work in the fields; with this they can set up a perverted form of “democracy.” The Pigs are in a position to steal property from the laboring animals (“from each according to his abilities”) and redistribute to the lazy (“to each according to his needs”) in return for votes. The lazy animals have unlimited needs, so the laboring animals may be taxed without limit. The Marxist Pigs manage this struggle between the working and lazy classes, and through vote-purchasing, establish a self-serving perversion of “democracy.”

  • alexander

    CLEAN ENERGY???? Are they out of their minds????
    Apparently so – it's not "clean"……………………. it's "dirty" COAL!!!
    Electricity does NOT come from an outlet on the wall, you poor idiotsss

  • Fred Dawes

    At some point the system will collapse and the boys at the top will just take anything it wants from you its called the communist state.

  • JBC

    You go on and on and on. Is Obfuscation a trait you cherish? Present your case in a clearly understood succinct way. You could use a case study course at a good business school where you must present your nalysis, findings and conclusion in three to five pages.

  • 080

    If I were setting the strategy for the Republican party I would keep the debt limit in place. I would tell the president that the total collapse of the economy that is supposed to happen can be avoided by simply raising taxes. Raising taxes does not require any change in the debt limit. That would mean that the government would have to raise taxes by the l.65 trillion dollar deficit. The Republicans should say that they will support him if he considers his current expenditures so urgent…After all, he is the president. That might annoy the American people. The Republicans can always say that they opposed the government spending so that the responsibility in on the Democrats. But after all, we couldn't allow the American economy to collapse as forecast by the Democrats.

  • Wesley69

    Quantitative Easing, if it continues beyond June, will further destroy the US dollar. Inflation could become Hyper-inflation with everyone's wealth at risk. People on fixed incomes will not survive. If the FED raises the Discount Rate, Loans from Banks will become near impossible to acquire. Businesses will not be able to expand. Many will be forced to close. Instead of a double-dip recession, we would have a depression.

    That the Obama Administration pays lip service to financial responsibility, is an understatement. Its anti-business attitudes and its pro-Green Energy programs will not lead to prosperity. There are very rough seas ahead. It seems Obama, instead of steering into the wave, is steering broadside to the wave.

  • Fred Dawes

    with mass number of parasite coming here and that once great nation only wanting money homes and jobs and doing the colonization thing and million each year doing the old immigration thing it is a down right sad to watch, i cry for all people that will soon become outcast.