brian0918 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I am trying to compile a list of hypocritical stances the public has taken when it comes to economic actions that they find acceptable by the government, but consider criminal for any other party. So far I have: 1. Ponzi scheme -- Private: Bernard Madoff -- Govt: Social Security 2. Counterfeiting -- Private counterfeiter -- Government treasury printing more money (or other inflationary tactic) Of course the second is debatable but the intents and effects are the same whether performed by the govt or private counterfeiter. Can anyone think of other examples of fiscal actions performed by the government that are considered acceptable (or even necessary!) by the public, and yet if they were performed by a private person or company, would lead to public outrage? Edited January 2, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megr.ferg Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am trying to compile a list of hypocritical stances the public has taken when it comes to economic actions that they find acceptable by the government, but consider criminal for any other party. So far I have: 1. Ponzi scheme -- Private: Bernard Madoff -- Govt: Social Security 2. Counterfeiting -- Private counterfeiter -- Government treasury printing more money (or other inflationary tactic) 3. Fiscal irresponsibility -- private: auto execs should not fly private jets to DC -- govt: pelosi and other politicians can take them all the time. Because the government IS fiscally responsible, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Well, as far as finances go, I don't think there's anything that the government does that would be considered good if attempted by private individuals, and the reason is simple: private individuals are seen as acting for profit, while the government is seen as altruistic. However, I don't see this attitude so much as hypocritical, but rather as plain evil and/or ignorant. (It is hypocritical, and cynical, on the part of the politicians and bureaucrats of course ) The first and most telling example is the right to be a monopoly: the gov. is the only source of money, and they managed to become a monopoly precisely because the public was persuaded that JP Morgan was becoming one. Edited January 2, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 3. Fiscal irresponsibility -- private: auto execs should not fly private jets to DC -- govt: pelosi and other politicians can take them all the time. Because the government IS fiscally responsible, right? Completely agreed. Additionally, overspending by government vs overspending by individuals and companies. Following Jake's lead, government overspending is in the public interest, but it's hard to maintain overspending for an individual or company because of budgets and future revenue from individual production. Government forces payment from that individual production. And welcome to the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 right to bear arms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 A book I'm reading used a horse-doping metaphor. You might dope a horse to get it to run really fast, even though it might collapse with tachycardia when the race is done. Similarly, the Fed can lower interest rates, guarantee debt, etc. to spur the "nominal economy", without the "real economy" giving a good showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Well, as far as finances go, I don't think there's anything that the government does that would be considered good if attempted by private individuals, and the reason is simple: private individuals are seen as acting for profit, while the government is seen as altruistic. My intent is to write some sort of piece, maybe an op ed, that begins with concrete examples like the pair I listed, and then tries to explain the common denominator, as you do. A book I'm reading used a horse-doping metaphor. You might dope a horse to get it to run really fast, even though it might collapse with tachycardia when the race is done. Similarly, the Fed can lower interest rates, guarantee debt, etc. to spur the "nominal economy", without the "real economy" giving a good showing. While that's an interesting example, I was hoping for more synonymous examples to make the hypocrisy crystal clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewRyan Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 4. Theft private: taking your money for my benefit govt: taking your money for "everyone's" benefit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 4. Theft private: taking your money for my benefit govt: taking your money for "everyone's" benefit Yes, this is the example that sprang instantly to my mind as well. Walter Williams does a good job of pounding this point home when he fills in for Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure there are a myriad of regulations that would fit in the same category. Certainly regulations on potentially life saving medicines are a great example of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewRyan Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am trying to compile a list of hypocritical stances the public has taken when it comes to economic actions that they find acceptable by the government, but consider criminal for any other party. So far I have: 1. Ponzi scheme -- Private: Bernard Madoff -- Govt: Social Security 2. Counterfeiting -- Private counterfeiter -- Government treasury printing more money (or other inflationary tactic) Of course the second is debatable but the intents and effects are the same whether performed by the govt or private counterfeiter. Can anyone think of other examples of fiscal actions performed by the government that are considered acceptable (or even necessary!) by the public, and yet if they were performed by a private person or company, would lead to public outrage? On second though, you only need to show one hypocritical stance: Private: No one can violate an individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. Govt: The government can violate an individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 A book I'm reading used a horse-doping metaphor. You might dope a horse to get it to run really fast, even though it might collapse with tachycardia when the race is done. Similarly, the Fed can lower interest rates, guarantee debt, etc. to spur the "nominal economy", without the "real economy" giving a good showing. That is a great metaphor! I think it means there will be some stimulated growth short term, but at the expense of a recession or depression long term. Btw, the stimulus may not even be that. As I understand it, what the government is doing is taking money from one area, unstimulating that area, and putting it into another area and thus stimulating that area. It's like moving water from what end of the pool and putting it into another. But when the government takes that money it is taking it from the productive and giving it to the non-productive or less productive, or that's the way it will work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Can anyone think of other examples of fiscal actions performed by the government that are considered acceptable (or even necessary!) by the public, and yet if they were performed by a private person or company, would lead to public outrage? Price controls Government: control greedy price gougers Private companies: attempt to monopolize. Huge debt Govenrment: deficit fianncing Private companies or individuals: living beyond your means As to counterfiting, no it isn't the same thing. But it is similar. Government does not counterfit money, because by definition money is the paper and coin the government puts into circualtion. What government does is: 1) inflate the money supply and 2) engage in monetary policy. What counterfiters should claim is that they are engaging in monetary policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) But when the government takes that money it is taking it from the productive and giving it to the non-productive or less productive, or that's the way it will work out. Indeed. I could see it being claimed that simple redistribution can't harm the economy, that at best it has no effect, but the fact that they can and do take from the more productive and efficient and give to the less productive/efficient means there is an actual reduction in wealth creation and the economy is invariably worse off than before. Edited January 2, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.