Stimulus jobs
From Reason:
Analogy time. Consider a robber who steals a purse containing $500, who then uses the money to buy himself a new TV. It is categorically undeniable that the theft has created a sale for the TV store. Conservatives who pretend the stimulus has not created any jobs whatsoever stand in the position of an observer trying to deny the TV has been sold.
Analogy time. Consider a robber who steals a purse containing $500, who then uses the money to buy himself a new TV. It is categorically undeniable that the theft has created a sale for the TV store. Conservatives who pretend the stimulus has not created any jobs whatsoever stand in the position of an observer trying to deny the TV has been sold.
Yet the liberal analysis lacks any recognition that the purse owner now has $500 less to spend on the laptop computer she was going to buy. The theft has generated one sale only by destroying another.
Read the entire article here.
I have a hard time believing that this Harvard grads like Obama don't understand this premise. I think they fully understand the "unintended" consequences of confiscating wealth from one and giving to another and that they're compensated for the favors that this creates.
It is the public that I don't understand. They rarely consider that this is legalized theft. They are quick to justify that the victim has plenty, so what's the harm? They are quick to believe that the victim must have taken to much from others if they have any to take.
In the case of stimulus spending, it's money from the future. We are robbing people that aren't even here yet - and justifying it.
Reply to this
"It is categorically undeniable that the theft has created a sale for the TV store." That's an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The owner of the purse, and the money, might have bought the TV, but for the theft. Who's to say that the money wouldn't have been spent--somehow, if not for the TV--but for the theft.?
Reply to this