I'll tell you, in order to be a part of what Tom Woods calls "respectable opinion" these days, you literally don't have to know anything about economics.
I have proof!
The Washington Post....E.J. Dionne...In the "Opinion" Section...I'm sure he gets paid well.
Here he goes:
For the economy and for the disadvantaged, curtailing SNAP would be devastating. While providing nutrition help to families in desperate need, food stamps also offer an immediate economic stimulus at moments when the economy is losing purchasing power. Economists call such programs “automatic stabilizers.”Now before you hop into the shower to wash that nonsense off, let me dissect this. It's what I do.
Does E.J. Dionne expect us to believe that the economy can't exist unless money is stolen from (A) and given to (B)?
No economy without theft? Is that what I'm reading?
And E.J. is merely talking about "curtailing" food stamps. What happens if they are eliminated? Does the Earth explode?
Dionne says that "food stamps also offer an immediate economic stimulus at moments when the economy is losing purchasing power." First of all, an economy does not lose purchasing power. Fiat money loses purchasing power! If money created out-of-thin-air is used to finance the food stamps, that very act creates a loss of money's purchasing power!
What if new money isn't used though? What if it's a straight-up theft & transfer?
Does theft now provide "economic stimulus"? What an interesting point of view. Remember that if you're ever confronted by a mugger on a city street. His stealing of your money provides an "immediate economic stimulus"! He should be praised, and not cast as some sort of villain! You're the villain should you seek to curtail him.
Finally, any person that uses the words "automatic stabilizers" does not qualify in my book as an "economist". Instead, it's a person who propagandizes for the barbarians.
Chris Rossini is author of Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal Reserve. Follow @chrisrossini on Twitter.
>> food stamps also offer an immediate economic stimulus at moments when the economy is losing purchasing power. <<
ReplyDeleteThe kind of stimulus that is akin to taking water from one side of the pool with a bucket and then pouring it on the other side of the pool.
I always find this type of argument curious.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it presumes that those who are taxed would not be spending the money in the first place. If so, this argument places a higher value on spending every cent one has, the moment one receives it, than it does on saving any portion of it.
Second, I always love to immediately segue into a discussion of counterfeiting. We are so far down the rabbit hole that it is hard put together a cogent argument against an individual counterfeiting money. First of all, the Federal Reserve counterfeits on such a scale that no individual, or organization for that matter, could affect the money supply by counterfeiting. It's also entertaining because given the reflexive, "Well, of course counterfeiting is bad, and should be illegal..." point of view most people hold, when I argue that my counterfeiting would actually be good for the economy because I would spend all of the money I printed, which would increase demand, and therefore increase jobs (I usually take it up a notch and say that I would print enough for my entire extended family, which would be even BETTER for the economy!), I usually get a deer in the headlights stare because, given the current state of acceptance of Keynesian economics, there isn't a coherent argument AGAINST my position.
My LOL moment...