Saturday, January 12, 2013

A Rush Commentary...Prosperity

Rush Limbaugh made a great comment that synopsizes the whole issue of where a country's wealth originates, where prosperity comes from.  He was in a diatribe about Nancy Pelosi's comments about how unemployment payments stimulate the economy, that for each dollar given to an unemployed individual (couldn't bring myself to say 'worker') produces a dollar and seventy three cents of activity due to the multiplier effect.  Well...check it out and comment.



"If people don't know where prosperity comes from, then all the rest of it is academic and doesn't matter.
If people think that prosperity comes from not working and receiving unemployment benefits, then we're finished. If a majority of people who vote really believe that or can be swayed by that -- that prosperity comes from government providing for people who can't work -- then we're pretty close to over. In truth, prosperity comes -- prosperity is created -- by people doing useful things for each other.
In fact, you could say, if you wanted to make a really literal point, that prosperity doesn't even have to deal with money. It could be accomplished with bartering. Money just makes the process more efficient. Via bartering. Okay, you don't use money; you barter. It means you offer to change the tires on the butcher's car and he gives you a steak. That's barter. But instead of that, people pay each other for doing useful things for them.
People pay other people for performing useful things. People pay other people for inventing useful things. People pay other people for making useful things. People buy useful things because they want them. This is how prosperity is created. Therefore, what is required for prosperity? As many people as possible doing useful and desired things for each other. At its root level, this is so simple.
But economics is taught as this very complex, intricately woven web of deceitful, hard-to-understand things. But economic commerce happens when people engage in economic activity, i.e., you buy something that somebody's made because you want it, and they sell it for profit. That's their incentive to make it. If they're only going to get back what it cost them, there won't be any reason outside of passion (which doesn't feed you) to make it. Simple as that.
As many people as possible working, producing and offering as many things and services as people need and want, equals prosperity. Therefore people sitting at home destroys it! People sitting at home doing nothing for anybody not only doesn't create prosperity, it destroys it, and people like Nancy Pelosi... This is near criminally incompetent in basic economics. She says this...
Now, I don't know whether she's that dumb and really believes it or if this is simply the result of some strategic thinking and knowing their voters and knowing their audience and saying silly things to justify stupid government policy. It doesn't really matter outside of the point of curiosity. But she said it; it couldn't be more wrong. It is irresponsible for political leadership to be speaking this way, but she does.
And they're winning right now."
Time to comment.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/11/flashback_pelosi_claimed_jobless_benefits_were_economic_stimulus

No comments:

Post a Comment

Share your unique economics experiences. What did you have to give up to gain that which at the moment seemed so necessary to you? Imperfect information spanked you and now diminishing marginal utility smacks you upside the head, eh?