Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: More Spread the Wealth - (nf) Message-ID: <612@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 23:48:19 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.612 Posted: Mon Dec 12 23:48:19 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 02:19:34 EST Lines: 130 #R:pyuxa:-41900:inmet:7800035:000:6301 inmet!nrh Dec 10 19:01:00 1983 [I just couldn't bring myself to repeat your exhausting stories about the pipefitter, the car salesman, the waitress, and how their employment by the Government directly or indirectly is the basis of prosperity. As a reply, some of the wisdom of Henry Hazlitt, "Economics in One Lesson": Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built .... The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence. This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benifited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receiver more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most. Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the governemt spenders becomes vivid and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers. ] If we could get our huge corporations to see this same idea, as they once did, the same economic conclusions could be made. But, huge corporations are both no longer willing to take risks, nor are they capable of economically supporting huge proects. [ And why not? Because a capricious, arbitrary, disorganized and vindictive force (government) has been given the authority to destory business activity on a project-by-project basis. There was a little set-to in California between a Government agency and a private firm which took the risk of owning land near the ocean for the purpose of putting up condos. They would have made 34 acres of the ocean front property available for a public beach. From "The Incredible Bread Machine", by Brown, Keating, Mellinger, Post, Smith, and Tudor: The privately-owned land was completely graded for construction before the Coastal Commission was empowered. In order to proceed with construction, AVCO had to apply to the newly formed commsion for the necessary permits. They were denied. AVCO was then caught between the conflicting demands of two government agencies. On the one hand the county demanded that AVCO finish the promised public beach by a certain date, while on the other hand the Coastal Commission denied the required permits to complete the work. In the meantime, the company paid (and is paying) $15,000 a day in taxes on the unused land. In an effort to save the righ top soil from erosion during the rainy season, AVCO proposed that the commission at least allow them to seed their own land with grass. This was also denied as it was feared by the commission that AVCO, as a result of having put more money into development, would then have a stronger legal case. Two years hav passed and the land which is a vicious eyesore, continues to erode each rainy season until now, even during light rain, the ocean becomes brown from the washed-out soil. Is this protecting the environment or the commission's power? That was some time ago. Anyone know if there's any resolution? If I were a businessman, I'd avoid taking any sort of risk that would put me in the hands of the Coastal Commission. ] Thus, we are left to depend upon the government to finance projects. Just giving the money away is non-productive. There has to be a conclusive result of the spending, economic stimulation, jobs "created", wealth circulating, more taxes collected, more projects targeted. Once the corporations realize that it is to their benefit to get in on the act, then they might be induced to jump into the cycle in a more positive way. [Indeed, they do. That's why they're turning from productive investment to fancier offices in Washington. A business has little defense against government corruption, except to buy in big. Everybody except the politicians and the "net tax winners". ] Creating goods is only half of the cycle. The other half is creating jobs so that the goods can be circulated. No matter how you slice it, the government is the key pin in the economic cycle in our day and time. We might as well face it and put our energies into making certain that the types of projects undertaken by the government are the ones that assure a continued economic growth. [Of course, we could face the idea that "government is they key pin in the economic cycle", but that it SHOULDN'T BE. This country was not founded on that idea, You will find little in the constitution and the bill of rights about Government's power over the economy. As I recall, Uncle Sugar's power to levy an income tax was added much later. ] The whole idea is akin to a "war economy" without the war and with recycle thrown in to preserve resources. [How disgusting. It's almost 1984. Was it Oceania vs Easthem? Shall we have conscription when people refuse to take the jobs that your (for I assume you, not I will control the government) programs offer them? Shall we have boarder guards to prevent people from fleeing to a freer place ] T. (Spread the Wealth) Wheeler [ Nat (feel free to spread YOUR wealth) Howard. ]