Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:05:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS,
> Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for
> college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money.
Only insofar as THEY derived a benefit... if what they paid in taxes covered the
education services they received, then no... in fact one could argue that I
ought to get a credit in my accounting if what they paid was more.
But this could indeed lead to an infinite regress.
I have another way to look at it that might shed light. First, is this a zero
sum game? If it's zero sum then for every net positive dollar of benefit that
flows to person A, there has to be a person B who saw a negative dollar of
benefit.
I suggest taking a look at it in the aggregate. take the transitive closure as
it were, integrate across the whole to see if it's zero sum or not. I don't
think it's zero sum. Viewing the wealth of the nation as a whole, it's clearly
non zero sum, it's hugely positive.
Where does the wealth of a nation come from? America, arguably, is a wealthier
place, as a whole, today than it was in 1789, and clearly much of the wealth
cannot be explained merely by the intrinsic value of the resources extracted
from American (and other, think whaling for example) territory. Where did that
wealth come from? It was made, by adding value to resources through human
endeavour.
Is it your assertion that all of this wealth came from government activity? Or
that government investment enabled all of the wealth creation? Or even some of
it, beyond what that activity cost?
I assert (without proof in this context, although the point has been argued
before here and elsewhere) that while there might be government activities that
enabled wealth creation or at least shield the process of creation from
destruction (the police, the courts, national defense, since these protect
rights of citizens) it is not generally government that creates wealth.
Rather, government, in the aggregate, destroys wealth. Many or most of the
programs, policies, agencies, and regulations of government have a net negative
effect on wealth creation. This is pretty well documented. There are some
exceptions, depending on how you do the accounting (NASA, my favorite government
agency, despite its manifold faults, springs to mind, especially in the early
years), but the aggregate is negative. How much wealth has been created by the
war in Iraq, for example?
So the wealth comes from the economic activities of private citizens, and modern
government is a drag on it, not an enabler. Hence, while the economy as a whole
is a positive sum game, the contribution of government is a negative sum game.
(for a defense of this view use Google to search for rent seeking)
If that is correct, then going back to the A dollar + and B dollar -... if
government is a net negative... then for every A+ dollar there is not just a B-
dollar, but actually a B-- !!! ...someone lost MORE than a dollar.
I assert that I'm one of the Bs, that my net governmental benefit has been
negative. If I'm right about the overall effect, then somebody has to be, and
someone that's paid in a lot more taxes than the average seems a good candidate
even without doing the detailed calculations.
Given that, why would I support further income transfer if it pushes me farther
into the red?
Your answer is to posit some disaster and assert that I might need a government
program someday to bail me out.
My answer back is that from an economic basis, the net present value of that
government program (given the probabilities that I will need it and the future
value of collecting it) is less than what it costs me to secure it, and that it
would be a better bet to buy private insurance from a sound company to guard
against that particular disaster.
Which I have already purchased, for most of the disasters I think are likely.
Why make me pay again?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS, Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money. I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
