Posted on 07/04/2018 11:52:37 AM PDT by Pollard
No doubt. Giving people such deal because it means they’ve got no more reason to comply with further requests seems to be a feature of how the Left protects itself.
Well, that and Arkancide....
As another comment just for comparison, Adam Smith’s work is in my view different from that of modern economists in a similar fashion.
Smith looked at what made people and nations rich, what tended to make them successful, and his concern reflects a national, or even a local and individual bias.
That’s why he’s right so much.
But modern economist think about what sort of economy would be rational, regulated and even tamed. The poster child for this approach has to be Keynes. In the process of looking at economics in terms of stability, government policy and the movement of money (even though, on the whole, it isn’t the small green pieces of paper that are unhappy ... so to speak) they are focused on what should work if economies were rational systems.
Governments love this sort of economist because they justify power, spending, and mad schemes of common weal.
But the real subject matter of economics isn’t the money but people: irrational emotional people.
Consider Keynes. He wrote about what is essentially a rational regulated economy where the role of government spending is countercyclic to the economy, spending more in bad times but less in good.
Yet he completely missed how real human beings in government would receive and ultimately distort his proposition into a looney tunes version where they would only ever hear admonishing to spend more ... bad times demand they spend more BUT good times are the opportunity to spend more. People need those services, spending has a moral aspect to far too many as they think it’s government’s job to do good.
Keynes completely failed as a philosopher studying Man and as a result his ideas could only ultimately fail even though they might seemed to have worked before politicians lost their itty bitty minds and became what I call Keystone Keynesians (think Keystone Cops). Even when Nixon said that we’re all Keynesians now the transition to Keystone Keynesians from Keynesians was already well underway and had mainly been concealed because in WW2 we helped destroy much of the industrial world and their wealth had streamed into our economy as they rebuilt.
By wanting a rational economy economists fail.
By looking at how people can become rich, but leaving the particulars to them, their ability and opportunity, Smith largely succeeded.
If he’s turning witnessagainst the Democrats he saw embezzling then he better hope the Witness Protection Program is completely free of deep state sympathizers for whom ethics are negotiable or there will be no place to hide.
Good post.
Adam Smith studied human behavior and derived his economic theories scientifically from observation and reason.
Keynes and Marx were shills for redistributive political policy agendas - their economic theories were not scientifically valid, but were developed as political justifications.
Good post.
Adam Smith studied human behavior and derived his economic theories scientifically from observation and reason.
Keynes and Marx were shills for redistributive political policy agendas - their economic theories were not scientifically valid, but were developed as political justifications.
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.