Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Chart Busts The Myth That Entitlements Destroy Growth
Business Insider ^ | Jul. 11, 2012, 11:23 AM | Matthew O'Brien

Posted on 07/11/2012 1:20:10 PM PDT by DannyTN

...The chart below compares average social spending with adjusted per capita GDP growth since 2000. ...


(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: entitlements; growth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last
The adjustment is not clear. Apparently they applied some sort of weighting because poorer countries are expected to grow faster.

And let's anyone be confused on my stance, I:


1 posted on 07/11/2012 1:20:17 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The chart is counter intuitive.

If you form a spectrum of countries with entitlements, with say communist countries at the far end, those communist countries were/are miserable failures.

Clearly there is a point of excess where the claim that entitlements don't matter becomes bunk.

Also what the chart doesn't show is that if growth is the same, then the more entitlements, the less people who work get paid.

But the chart claims that entitlements themselves do not hinder economic growth. I'm wondering if anyone can poke holes in this chart.

2 posted on 07/11/2012 1:27:53 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I do believe their is scriptural authority for ...Governments to care for the poor

Please provide a scriptural reference for such authority.
3 posted on 07/11/2012 1:35:03 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I support safety nets. I think they encourage risk taking and therefore help the economy.

They do encourage risk taking and leave the taxpayer to fund failed prospects.

Success that is acheivable and not punished with higher taxes should be incentive to take risks.
4 posted on 07/11/2012 1:37:49 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I believe the chart embodies the misconception that “correlation is causation”. For just one briefly-thought-of example, Norway found a boatload of oil off its coast and exploited it. I think they expanded social spending greatly as a result, in addition to already having that type of tradition. Good for them. It worked. I believe the US has had precisely the opposite experience, validated over a longer period of time, as well as having a far more diverse (apologies, I hate that word) population.


5 posted on 07/11/2012 1:39:04 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Instead of running for another term, 0bama should be begging for forgiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

There are:
1) Lies
2) Damnable Lies
3) Statistics

This is clearly an example of #3


6 posted on 07/11/2012 1:39:25 PM PDT by Mr. K (OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED ROMNEY/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Well said.


7 posted on 07/11/2012 1:42:05 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Instead of running for another term, 0bama should be begging for forgiveness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Get down off the theory cloud. Look at reality. The social spending in this country is out of control. No serious Christian can condone it as an example of good stewardship. It is proflegate in every sense of the word.


8 posted on 07/11/2012 1:44:02 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
This Chart Busts

Wow! A chart with boobs.

Bet they are bursting to get out.

The writer always wanted to be a journalist, and now he are one.

9 posted on 07/11/2012 1:44:22 PM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys=Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Sorry, but your chart and the premise behind it are both a load of crap.

The countries with the highest amount of “social spending” (think Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Russia, Greece, Spain, Portugal et al) have collapsed or are collapsing. All these countries have more spending per capita than we do in the US, and all have economies that are garbage. Moreover, we have the highest level of entitlement payments in our history, and our growth is stagnant.


10 posted on 07/11/2012 1:49:31 PM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

That article is complete Apples-to-Oranges nonsense. The author is an idiot.


11 posted on 07/11/2012 1:50:01 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Future generations will curse what we've done to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I do believe their is scriptural authority for individuals, churches and yes Governments to care for the poor.

Please provide Scriptural support for Governments taking care of the poor. Government as it's core is compulsion. All that government does is ultimately backed up by the threat of force.

Do you realize that most "programs for the poor" have 80% or more of the dollars absorbed by the bureaucracy (direct and indirect costs)?

I support bankruptcy protections as our Founding Father's found those to be wise. I support safety nets. I think they encourage risk taking and therefore help the economy.

Safety nets are fine, as long as they are strictly private safety nets.

Every single thing government touches, it corrupts or destroys.

Those who view government as an inherent good are true enemies of our Founders and their beliefs. Our Founders did all they could to minimize the impact of government in our lives.

12 posted on 07/11/2012 1:53:09 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Whatever you think about government care for the poor, there are certain things that are true:

1) The federal government should not be involved
2) People will become dependent
3) And, the taxpayer money will be stolen by politicians

Best to leave it to the churches.


13 posted on 07/11/2012 1:54:39 PM PDT by donna (Mitt quote: ...gay couples raising kids. That's the American way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The term “Social Spending” is pretty ambiguous. I followed the link to the source, and to their sources and got some insights.

(See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220615515052)

The “social spending” in the chart apparently includes both public and private “social spending”. That means that if I spend my money at my physician’s private practice, it is included as “social spending” even though it is entirely in the private sector.

I think that point alone makes the analysis meaningless.
Apparently any spending on health care is “social spending”, so any free market GDP growth from the health sector would be counted as growth due to “social spending”.

I’m not swallowing this bait.


14 posted on 07/11/2012 1:55:06 PM PDT by NonLinear (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
"Please provide a scriptural reference for such authority."

Prov 29, especially Prov 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.

Jer 22:15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest [thyself] in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, [and] then [it was] well with him? 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then [it was] well [with him: was] not this to know me? saith the LORD.

The general authority can be derived from the fact that God gave man dominion over the earth, and made comments directly to Noah after the flood that are considered to establish man's authority for social justice.

But I see specific authority and even a command in the above verses, as well as comments made to Nebuccanezzar.

Dan 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

"We the people" are the ruler of this country. And if "we the people" want to continue to rule we need to pay attention to the poor. That doesn't mean we have to be stupid about how we do it.

15 posted on 07/11/2012 2:01:21 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

1. The chart’s vertical axis covers just 15 points out of a full range of 100, exaggerating differences in a rather similar range.

2. All countries depicted are similar Westernized economies. Hardcore communist, 3rd world, Asian, and other countries are not included. 22 countries are depicted out of about 200 (depending on how you define “country”).

3. Trajectories are concealed. Greece, Spain, and Italy are imploding. The USA had a long-running 2% norm until welfare spending went, what we would consider, out of control of late. Other ill-defined “normalization of data” is applied.

4. Differing priorities. Americans could put up with a lot more “redistribution of wealth” if they would put up with far smaller homes, compact population demographics, and fewer other options. ...but we won’t, because as a culture we don’t like being subjected to arbitrary limits by strangers. Many of our “poor” are “middle class” by standards of other depicted cultures.

5. Parasitic benefits. Many of the countries can afford another 15 points over our entitlement spending because they’re NOT spending it on military defense. Why? because the USA is taking its own 15 points out of could-be entitlement spending and dumping it into their defense. Cut US military spending to match European levels, and our entitlement spending would rise, GDP growth would boom, and half those countries would cease to exist as they periodically have throughout history.

Upshot: I’m suspicious that the author _wanted_ to obfuscate any entitlement-v-growth correlations.


16 posted on 07/11/2012 2:02:10 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

And what part of scripture tells you that you can reach into your neighbor’s pocket - Government - to satisfy your moral obligations?


17 posted on 07/11/2012 2:02:43 PM PDT by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I think it is naive in the extreme to take ANY two isolated factors in an economy and argue a direct correlation. When you take a basket as diverse as "entitlements" it becomes foolhardy (IMHO).

All entitlements are not bad - the idea of a social insurance program where workers pay an amount to insure their future is as sound an idea as life insurance or liability insurance. The US screwed up it's program because it is not run as a pure insurance program but is used to redistribute wealth from high-earners to low-earners.

So if entitlement spending is the result of a well-designed insurance program, it is not necessarily detrimental to an economy. What kills an econmony is when there are entitlements that transfer capital from the productive to the non-productive and, in the process, induce a greater number of non-productive people.

Children, veterans, truly disabled people earn my sympathy and deserve some support from society. It is a moral thing to do.

But there is no good moral or economic basis to continue programs that enable able-bodied people to be unproductive, to have children out-of-wedlock, to indulde drug and alcohol habits, to feel entitled to cell phones that they can yack on for hours and cable tv with 999 channels by taking money out of the pockets of hard-working men and women. Why should a worker have to tell his kid he can't have a decent pair of shoes because the government needs to take his money and give it to someone who will be buying illicit drugs with it?

The original example is oversimplified to the point of uselessness, IMHO.

18 posted on 07/11/2012 2:03:07 PM PDT by In Maryland (Don't Send Law Enforcement to a gunfight carrying BEANBAGS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Socialism is the economic system that presumes society will be better off when everyone lives at the expense of everyone else.

People familiar with the Ten Commandments will see that this requires organized coveting and theft. No Christian has the authority to live at the expense of others. The Apostle Paul wrote several times in his epistles that coveting the wealth of others is idolatry. (e.g. Ephesians 5:5) He stated clearly that no such person can attain eternal life.

Jesus dictated the book of Revelation to the Apostle John. In chapter 22 and verse 15, He said that no idolater can inherit eternal life.

Why praise socialism? Because it is a path to a secular Utopia which can only be hell on earth, as the people in Lenin’s Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Little Kim’s North Korea found out.


19 posted on 07/11/2012 2:04:14 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What I read from the chart is that there was no growth for each country. Sweden did the best at 1.5%?

Put another way, the message of that chart is:

S-T-A-G-N-A-T-I-O-N!!!!

20 posted on 07/11/2012 2:05:59 PM PDT by Night Hides Not (My dream ticket for 2012 is John Galt & Dagny Taggart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
"Get down off the theory cloud. Look at reality. The social spending in this country is out of control. No serious Christian can condone it as an example of good stewardship. It is proflegate in every sense of the word."

I agree with you. There is fraud and mismanagement everywhere. I'm not in favor of being stupid about it.

But I'm not for killing safety nets, simply because they have been mismanaged either.

21 posted on 07/11/2012 2:07:26 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Suppose instead of , or in addition to “US,” you sprinkled ten of the States. Say: Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, ,Florida, ,Texas, Georgia, California. What would it look like?


22 posted on 07/11/2012 2:09:40 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

How many of those countries have any capability of defending themselves let alone the burden of defending others?


23 posted on 07/11/2012 2:09:40 PM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

The economist Ludwig von Mises showed in 1920 [1,2] that since a socialist economy destroys price information via government intrusion, the myriad of participants in the economy are unable to make a fully rational calculation about true profit and loss. Any economic activity that operates at a loss cannot be “sustainable”, a concept the left loves to scold us about, yet cannot really grasp.

Taking another approach, the Nobel economist F.A. Hayek showed that a national economy had such an immense myriad of dynamic economic relationships that no single committee or bureaurcracy, no matter how smart or how well staffed, could possibly know enough to direct prices or production levels. His Nobel Lecture [3] was entitled The Pretence of Knowledge. Hayek had previously used this idea as the basis for a very thorough article [4] on the subject, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”

When these two different withering critiques of socialism are combined, it is easy to see that not only is it dangrously foolish to think that economic decisions can successfully be made by government, but that competing bureaucracies will invariably react to the consequences of intrusions in the marketplace by each other. It would be like trying to control the height of waves on a lake by measuring them from the back of a boat circling in its own wake.

[1] Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

[2] Why a Socialist Economy is “Impossible” by Joseph T. Salerno
http://mises.org/econcalc/POST.asp

[3] The Pretense of Knowledge
http://mises.org/daily/3229

[4] “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, XXXV, No. 4; September, 1945, pp. 519–30.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=92


24 posted on 07/11/2012 2:09:56 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sand88
"Please provide Scriptural support for Governments taking care of the poor. Government as it's core is compulsion. All that government does is ultimately backed up by the threat of force.

See post 15. And nobody likes authority. Doesn't mean all authority is bad.

Do you realize that most "programs for the poor" have 80% or more of the dollars absorbed by the bureaucracy (direct and indirect costs)?

I don't believe it's that bad, but even if so, then that's badly mismanaged. I'm not in favor of being stupid about it. But I'm not in favor of removing safety nets, simply because it's being mismanaged. Measure the effectiveness and change the management until it improves.

25 posted on 07/11/2012 2:13:37 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Who is talking about killing safety nets? What we are trying to avoid happing is what happened to Great Britain from 1945-1980. The economy lagged significantly because the Government—Labour and Tory— put as bucket under every leak in the roof rather than repairing/replacing the roof.


26 posted on 07/11/2012 2:13:55 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NonLinear
"The “social spending” in the chart apparently includes both public and private “social spending”. That means that if I spend my money at my physician’s private practice, it is included as “social spending” even though it is entirely in the private sector. I think that point alone makes the analysis meaningless."

Good point.

27 posted on 07/11/2012 2:15:24 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Let’s be clear - most of what come from The Business Insider is leftwing Bovine Excrement! Why do some FReepers insist on posting this trash? So that we can understand that Leftists are liars? Right. And in other news, water is wet.


28 posted on 07/11/2012 2:16:22 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who worked for Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

All good points.


29 posted on 07/11/2012 2:16:53 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'm wondering if anyone can poke holes in this chart.

Actually, you already did, with your first sentance.

These data (in the chart) have been carefully cherry-picked to support the desired conclusion. Notice how countries (Cuba, for example) where very high (relative) amounts are spent on "social spending" are all missing.

30 posted on 07/11/2012 2:17:14 PM PDT by sima_yi ( Reporting live from the far North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Wait one. I am printing it out.


31 posted on 07/11/2012 2:18:19 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Okay, so you think government programs for the poor are a good idea. Fine. (Personally, I prefer the majority of the work to be done by private charities, churches, local organizations, etc etc etc, but that's just me.)

Now explain in full detail why the FEDERAL level of government should be doing it, instead of the state and local levels, which have no 10th Amendment violations to deal with. THIS is the crucial point that must be made, IMHO.

32 posted on 07/11/2012 2:21:07 PM PDT by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Let me be the first to play the race card.

How many blacks and Mexicans are in these “winning growth” countries with lots of entitlements?


33 posted on 07/11/2012 2:21:57 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Well, I wouldn’t equate “faithfully judging” the poor with a mandate to support the poor. This scriptures (Prov 29 and Jer 22) clearly states the poor are not to be deprived of justice just because of their financial status. The Daniel reference is a personal plea to the king of Babylon, hence his personal rebuke in v. 28-33.

“We the people” have individual responsibilities to show charity. I don’t believe that I obtain one single jewel in my crown for paying taxes that I am required by law to pay, nor for voting to raise taxes on my wealthier neighbors. The latter issue is addressed in a more commonly known verse.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s. (Exo 20:17)


34 posted on 07/11/2012 2:22:23 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
"The Apostle Paul wrote several times in his epistles that coveting the wealth of others is idolatry. (e.g. Ephesians 5:5) He stated clearly that no such person can attain eternal life.'

So when a blind man begs at the temple gate, or an orphan begs, is that coveting and idolatry?

Clearly there are people who abuse the system and are guilting of laziness, coveting, theft and idolatry. But I don't think that applies to most people who would support safety nets, or even most people who use them.

35 posted on 07/11/2012 2:24:06 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
"The Apostle Paul wrote several times in his epistles that coveting the wealth of others is idolatry. (e.g. Ephesians 5:5) He stated clearly that no such person can attain eternal life.'

So when a blind man begs at the temple gate, or an orphan begs, is that coveting and idolatry?

Clearly there are people who abuse the system and are guilting of laziness, coveting, theft and idolatry. But I don't think that applies to most people who would support safety nets, or even most people who use them.

36 posted on 07/11/2012 2:24:24 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I wouldn’t think you would get jewels in your crown for paying taxes either. But the length of a democracy/republic’s reign might well depend on how we vote and what actions we take as a democracy/republic.


37 posted on 07/11/2012 2:27:53 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'm wondering if anyone can poke holes in this chart.

The first hole i can spot is that the Social spending as a % of GDP is based on actual figures for 2000-2007 and Projections for 2008-2012. If you actually look at the figures from the OECD they only have projections for 2008-2012 so five of the thirteen years are projections. I haven't yet figured out how they have calculated "adjusted GDP growth"

38 posted on 07/11/2012 2:31:51 PM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
But the length of a democracy/republic’s reign might well depend on how we vote and what actions we take as a democracy/republic.

Absolutely, but trying to force the roll of the Church on the government, and allowing the government to usurp the roll of churches and families will have the opposite of the desired effect.
39 posted on 07/11/2012 2:33:40 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: donna
"1) The federal government should not be involved"

I'm not sure the Federal government is authorized by the constitution to be involved given the enumerated powers, but the reason the Feds are involved is that some states were dumping their indigents at the state line.

2) People will become dependent

Not if it's done right. I'm not saying it's done right now.

3) And, the taxpayer money will be stolen by politicians

Not if we elect trustworthy people and demand checks and balances. That statement is a condemnation of all government and all politicians, the logical consequence of which is anarchy, dissolving all government which results in Somalia.

40 posted on 07/11/2012 2:34:02 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
"Absolutely, but trying to force the roll of the Church on the government, and allowing the government to usurp the roll of churches and families will have the opposite of the desired effect."

I don't see that is usurping anybody's roll. The mandate is to all three. Does a church usurp the individual's role by giving to the poor? No, neither does a government usurp their role by doing the same.

41 posted on 07/11/2012 2:36:37 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Government spending is a component of GDP.
Yes, increasing government spending IS increasing GDP by definition.

Drawing the conclusion from this study that social spending is ‘good’ is therefore a well known Logical Fallacy...Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.


42 posted on 07/11/2012 2:37:05 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You cannot assume that money will always be available across the board.

Any entitlement is akin to....a bird. If a mama bird builds a nest and lays eggs, the point is to get the baby birds to grow and leave. Do we EVER hear tell of a baby bird who won’t leave and yet continues to be cared for? Is that possible? What are the impacts to the mama bird? Are we to believe that a grown bird can exist and just sit on the nest, waiting for handouts from a mama bird...with her own life and needs?

Welfare queens, other entitlement...work like an adult bird on a nest. It’s one thing to have to go hole up somewhere and lick your wounds. Living your life like an adult baby bird doesn’t cut it.


43 posted on 07/11/2012 2:38:50 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I don't see reflected in the charts the fact that many of these countries have indulged in unsustainable government spending and borrowing.

The next ten years will look nothing like the last ten years. The next decade will be a frightening transition into a world for which the majority of people will be unprepared. There will be many elderly couples with extended families living in the same house.

Those who might have exercised constraint and saved some of their income will be expected to support the younger generation for whom there will be no job prospects. Unable to find jobs flipping hamburgers for each other, millions of "college educated" people will be blaming capitalism for the fact that they produce nothing whatever that is of value to the world.

The government will be buying massive amounts of paper to print money and the resulting currency will buy little or nothing. The price of energy will "necessarily skyrocket", just as Obama has wished. Rolling blackouts will be the norm, so that the few power plants allowed to operate can distribute their electricity most "fairly". There will be shortages of practically everything, but the government will have "five-year-plans" to address the shortages by mandating that somebody somewhere will have to fill the shortages while not being allowed to make a profit.

Atlas will have finally shrugged.

44 posted on 07/11/2012 2:39:18 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
"five of the thirteen years are projections."

Good point. There are several other holes/observations in the thread too.

45 posted on 07/11/2012 2:40:41 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

That’s a good point. Someone else pointed out that “Trending” needs to be looked at, not simple a single point in time.


46 posted on 07/11/2012 2:42:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Government spending is a component of GDP. Yes, increasing government spending IS increasing GDP by definition. Drawing the conclusion from this study that social spending is ‘good’ is therefore a well known Logical Fallacy...Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Excellent point.

47 posted on 07/11/2012 2:47:07 PM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Leaving aside the simple illogic of giving money to the unproductive section of society and pretending it's somehow productive, let's just look at that chart. No matter how many ways you do the math, there is no line of regression (a "best-fit" line that gives a good indication of what the trend is).

Ergo, the only thing this chart tells us is that there is NO correlation between those two factors. This makes sense, since those countries all have vastly different economies, priorities, needs, and governments. Many of those countries also receive subsidies from other countries (like the billions that Germany saves on national defense since the US bases there provide all the security they'll ever need).

Interestingly, though... if you remove Scandinavia, and Germany and its neighbors (NED, BEL, AUS)... a very clear line does being to emerge. Outside of north-central Europe, the "best-fit" line clearly slopes downwards to the right... indicating that less social spending is correlated to greater growth.

Also interesting that Mexico didn't make the chart, despite it being in North America, and their forbears from Portugal and Spain did get included... Also wondering why Russia, Turkey and Eastern Europe were ignored, despite being part of Europe... The Czech Republic, Austria and Greece were included, but not the rest of the Serbian peninsula located between them... also left out were Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all of which are EU member states (as are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia)... what exactly was the criteria for getting included in the chart and more importantly, excluded??

48 posted on 07/11/2012 2:50:17 PM PDT by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
DannyTN said: "But I'm not in favor of removing safety nets, simply because it's being mismanaged. "

Haven't I heard this before? Oh, yes ... It isn't the fault of socialism that it fails wherever its been tried, it just hasn't been done right.

49 posted on 07/11/2012 2:50:17 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Now explain in full detail why the FEDERAL level of government should be doing it, instead of the state and local levels, which have no 10th Amendment violations to deal with. THIS is the crucial point that must be made, IMHO.

See post 40.

Personally, I'm in favor of restoring and strengthening the enumerated powers. But it would take a detailed structured plan to grandfather, transition or terminate all the programs that are outside of the enumerated powers.

And then you'd need amendments killing the use of federal matching funds for non-enumerated activities. And another placing limits on taxation.

50 posted on 07/11/2012 2:51:30 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson