The typical Keynesian argument goes like this: If you give poor people money, they will spend it. This money will then be spent again and again.  This pattern is called the multiplier. Liberals use this argument to justify hand-outs.

What are they missing.

In order for government to give a hand-out, the money most come from somewhere. That inflow usually happens in one of two ways. It is either forcibly extracted from the productive in the form of taxes…or it is forcibly extracted from the young in the form of debt.

Keynesians argue that the rich don’t spend their money. They save it or invest it. I say, “That’s good”. When they invest it, they are putting their money toward wealth creation not consumption and that is exactly what this country needs. If they save it…their money gets invested by someone else…and their money is being put toward wealth creation instead of consumption and that is exactly what this country needs.

Is there a multiplier when you spur investment. Sure there is. People take that investment money and spend it.

So one philosophy things that spending money is the solution and one philosophy thinks that creating wealth is the solution. Put me in the second camp.

Oh…and if you think I’m misleading you about how liberals think…check out Nancy Pelosi.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.