Category Archives: Spending

A United Interest Between Rich and Poor

Death to Social Security!
Would that it were a battlecry I actually heard. I would vote for a politician who uttered those words.

I recently read an article from entitled “Why has the Post series created so little reaction?” that was about the corruption of our government and how it has empowered and enriched a corrupt elite. It was more heartening to me than disheartening. I have long argued that capitalism is something we haven’t a shadow of; our government is corporatist. It is designed, owned, and operated by major corporations. Capitalism would destroy these entities. They are as hostile to the ghost of real capitalism as any socialists ever were. Our corporatist system is functionally socialist in a lot of ways, from the way small producers are uniformly squashed in favor of larger (and supposedly more capable) entities, to the chilling effect that economic restrictions have ultimately had on other freedoms. And to continue that last little reference, Friedrich Hayek once said that socialism can not be implemented without means that socialists will not approve of. I do not think corporatism suffers that problem.

Of course, this all must seem an odd digression. Where does Social Security come into this picture? Well the article also mentioned that there is a drive among the ‘billionaire class’ to cut Social Security. This is the only place where the criticisms in the article really miss the mark. It is hard to overstate this case – Social Security, as done in the USA, is not ultimately beneficial to anyone. It may have provided short-term benefits to some people, especially those who got into the program early. And for those who are presently beneficiaries, I am sure they would suffer to lose the income stream now. However, the program has eaten capital throughout its entire history and it will continue to do so as long as it exists in whatever form it exists in. By providing an illusion of late-life safety, it even discourages effective planning and saving. It shortens the already short time-horizons of Americans. And I know this idea is terribly long out of fashion, but I dare say the program is bad for our national spirit.

Social Security has done nothing for social justice. Instead it has damaged our economy. It has damaged our ability to plan for the future. It has damaged our ability to function independently of government. It has even, by consuming capital that could have gone to industrial and technological causes, held back our sciences. And as capitalism has been the engine to lift humanity out of poverty wheresoever some piece of the market was allowed unburdened to function, so I say Social Security has even left poverty that much more prevalent in our society. It is a bitter legacy for liberals that has become a strangely holy pig in the public trough.

It was a bad idea implemented poorly. It doesn’t even come close to providing income commensurate with the expenses of aging! That’s why I called it an illusion of late-life safety. The entire program is a foolish pyramid scheme and it is long overdue to go away. I don’t care who exactly slaughters the holy pig. As much as I abhor the corporatist, corrupt, overcentralized government of our modern age, exactly what the motive of those who kill Social Security is seems irrelevant to me. The death of the program is an interest shared by very nearly the entire country. Rich and poor alike should rejoice to see Social Security vanish from America, and were it up to me, the event would be heralded by parties in every city street.

And just maybe, if this program is cut, people will come to realize how unreliable this corrupt government of ours really is. That will be a valuable day in American history.

Report This Post

Another Thing We Don’t Have

Subtitle: Another thing to blame the government for.

Some of us may have been around to see when futurists sincerely believed that jetpacks would become common and popular. A common joke today is to complain, “Okay, it’s the future. Now where’s my jetpack?” It’s 2010, right? This was supposed to be a year of tremendously advanced technology. In fairness, it is. Many predictions simply proved infeasible. Consumer jetpacks are likely never to be a reality.

Today though, I was reading one of those old predictions. It can be found through this link. It was published in 1961 on July 22nd and it is entitled “Will Life Be Worth Living in 2,000 AD?” As per usual for many of these things, the predictions tend to be wrong. It predicts jetpacks also. A few things though it gets right. “Mail and newspapers will be reproduced instantly anywhere in the world by facsimile” stands out as a pretty good description of the internet. “There will be machines doing the work of clerks, shorthand writers and translators. Machines will “talk” to each other” is another one that I feel we can say has come true, and had come true as of 2000 (though in a less refined form).

What really jumped out at me though was a prediction that didn’t come true, though it could have. “There will be moving plastic-covered pavements, individual hoppicopters, and 200 m.p.h. monorail trains operating in all large cities,” boasts the article. I don’t know what hoppicopters are, but we could have had moving pavements and monorails easily. Monorails especially. Moving pavements always seemed a little clumsy to me. I know an airport or two that has implemented them and… yeah, rather clumsy things. But monorails, we could have had. We have the technology. It’s expensive, but not unthinkably so. Many environmentalist groups are advocating for government funding. I want to present a little exercise in an alternative present.

Imagine if the government didn’t fund the highway systems so extensively, leaving them up to the states, and likely having many of them fall into disrepair. Trains would still be popular. Downtown areas would still have thriving centers around train depots like they used to. Trains are much more efficient than cars. It wouldn’t require massive government subsidies to prop up what little rail travel we have. (It doesn’t require that now; those rails should be allowed to live or die on the markets, but I digress.) And if rail travel was a way that people really got around, there’d be demand to improve it. Without so much money going to the highways, billions of dollars more would have been in the hands of the private market over the many years since the various highway expansion programs, billions of dollars that would have helped develop our capital structure over the years, making us richer. With the profits of the railway systems and a desire to ensure that they stayed competitive against each other and against alternative transit methods it seems very probable that we would have not just 200mph monorails but 500mph maglevs. Perhaps even better! The technology would be farther along today than it is. It would be cheaper. It would be wider used. It would be better tested. And indeed, it would be faster. All of this without a cent of government money. This alternate future would be better for the environment, better for the economy, and better for the American people.

We don’t have those nice things today. There are many other nice things we don’t have because government, bureaucracy, central planning, and make-work projects ate our money and gave us nothing useful in return. Shall we continue doing this, wasting the resources of today and tomorrow, that our children should be disappointed the same way? I hope not.

Report This Post