What If Congress Was In Charge of Supermarkets?
Consider the challenge we give supermarket managers. We don't tell them in advance when we're going to shop, what we're going to buy and how much, but if they don't live up to this challenge, we're going to fire them by taking our business elsewhere. The supermarket manager does a fairly good job doing what's necessary to meet that challenge. You can bet the rent money that Congress couldn't begin to produce such a satisfactory outcome.
~George Mason Economist Walter E. Williams
7 Comments:
I hate false analogies but anyway what does this person propose after all? Is he sending a message? Is he proposing doing away with government.
Is he an anarcho-capitalist?
Where is the beef? Talk is cheap.
O.K. sophist, so what are you saying?
Where is this alledged, "false analogy" you speak of sir?
Walter Williams asks the logical question: "Right now Congress tells each American how much should be set aside out of his weekly paycheck for retirement. How can they have the information to know what's the best use for the $70, or so, taken from you and put into Social Security?"
The federal government is suppose to have foisted off that socialist nanny state program onto the productive called Social Security?
Why is the federal government in the entitlements scam in the first place?
Must Uncle Sam as Don Boudreaux asks spend $10,333 annually for every man, woman, and child in America?
What part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights mandates federal interference in retirement programs, medical fields, the farm arena, and so forth and so on?
Yes sophist, where is the beef to your 'talk is cheap' comment?
95% of people Juandos need a government to tell them what to do. It's a sad but real story. It's not the time for Anarcho-capitalism yet unless you want chaos to prevail.
So my answer is, you pay $70 to avoid chaos. It's a small price to pay.
"95% of people Juandos need a government to tell them what to do. It's a sad but real story"...
Oh I agree sophist...
"So my answer is, you pay $70 to avoid chaos. It's a small price to pay"...
I disagree since the nanny state has extorted something in the neighborhood of $58,000 from since the early sixties...
I'll take the chaos if it means shucking the uncessary and overly expensive and overbearing nanny state...
>> ... what does this person propose after all?
> O.K. sophist, so what are you saying?
sophist is indicating that he is another idiot studying hard to be a moron -- and failing.
Williams is one of the more respected economic commentators out there, a former chairman of the economics department at George Mason, which I believe is one of the key Austrian schools (correct, Mark?)
One can hardly claim to grasp anything about economics and not know the least thing about who he is, for the simple reason that you will encounter him, or at least his name (which should lead you to reading him at least enough to decide you disagree) on a regular basis in any sort of wide readings on the subject.
Hence, sophist demonstrates that he hasn't bothered with reading AT ALL on the subject of economics, one of the most complex, counter-intuitive subjects humans have tackled... but still thinks he can possess an opinion on the topic worthy of expression.
Q.E.D. -- he's an idiot studying hard to be a moron -- and failing.
> 95% of people Juandos need a government to tell them what to do.
I'll even grant you this (without arguing beyond the point of asking how society existed before such BS was enacted?)
What you fail to grasp is that there are four things:
The cart, the donkey, the carrot, and the stick.
Governments do moderatly well as carrot and stick. They utterly SUCK at donkey and cart.
If we grant your premise, we can certainly implement it using the government as carrot and stick -- you MUST set aside such and such an amount for retirement from each paycheck, and it MUST be placed into a large list of acceptably risky investments (which might even be tailored to your age and the current valuation of your personal fund compared to expected needs)
You, on the other hand, want them to do all four jobs, despite the fact that the returns on Social Security payouts to the recipients have, for decades, lagged massively behind even an exceedingly conservative investment portfolio over the same time.
Mind you, that's because, unlike any legitimate pension scheme, which has strong controls on how it is invested, SoSec is, as everyone knows, a giant Ponzi Scheme, which, were anyone else but a national government running it, would have been shut down decades ago.
> So my answer is, you pay $70 to avoid chaos. It's a small price to pay.
Tell ya what -- I'll take that bet, too -- pay **me** $70 a month to not come over to your house and shoot you dead. How's that?
Hey, it's a small price to pay to avoid chaos.
Isn't it?
:-P
.
"Mind you, that's because, unlike any legitimate pension scheme, which has strong controls on how it is invested, SoSec is, as everyone knows, a giant Ponzi Scheme, which, were anyone else but a national government running it, would have been shut down decades ago.'...
Well OBloodyHell, I see you too aren't exactly enamored with what passes for a government interfered with retirement program...:-)
I tend to ask those who think SS is eminently legal and fair to go around to their neighbors and make the same pitch Uncle Sam does when one's paycheck is extorted so as to continue to finance the Ponzi scam and see what happens and how quickly (versus getting SS problems solved when dealing with government employees) the government will send its own Schutzstaffel around to put a stop the collections...
Post a Comment
<< Home