“Okay, Neighbor, you say that the important jobs we don’t see are the jobs that are destroyed by the loss of the million bucks taken from the taxpayers to build the bridge. I can understand the million bucks in taxes,” I said. “What’s the story on the destruction of jobs?”
“Well, if you look closely, said my neighbor, you’ll see what has actually happened. Jobs have been diverted from one place to another. Yes, yes, for a short time, there may be more bridge workers, but at the same time, there are fewer automobile workers, technicians, clothing workers, farmers and so on. Let me ask you, Where would the bridge have been if obstructionists had had their way?”
“Are you serious? It’s obvious. There would have been no bridge,” I responded.
My neighbor nodded, then said, “Right. There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer.”
Somewhat confused at this point, I said to him, “For goodness sakes, neighbor, doesn’t that support the argument of the government spenders?”
“Not so fast, Draco. In this argument, the government spenders have the advantage again, but only with those who can’t see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. These people can see the bridge. What they can’t see are the unbuilt homes and cars, the unmade dresses, coats, perhaps ungrown and unsold food. Let’s face it. For a person to be able to see uncreated things requires a special kind of imagination that not many people have. With a great deal of effort and prodding, some people can think of non-existent objects. Maybe they can do this once, but they can’t keep in mind a non-existent object the way they can a bridge that they can go and take a look at. That’s why it’s so difficult for them to understand that the only thing that has happened in the building of the bridge is that one thing has been created instead of another. They can easily see the one, but they can’t see the other. The same reasoning applies to every other form of public work, by the way.”
“Every form?” I asked. “No exceptions? Can you provide another example?”
“Sure,” said my neighbor. “For example, it applies just as well to using ‘public funds’ to build ‘low-income’ or ‘affordable’ housing projects.”
“Neighbor, this is a very contentious subject. To a lot of people, affordable housing’s a sacred cow. Proposals to build them come up all the time. What happens?” I asked. “What’s the logic on this?”
“Just follow the money. To enable one set of families to live in better housing, for the same rent or for lower rent than previously, government takes the money to build these projects away from another set of families through taxation. These are families with higher income, perhaps even a little from families of even lower income. Thus, one set of families is forced to subsidize another set.”
“Well, yeah,” I said. “That seems to be the basic idea, doesn’t it?”
“Well, if you look closely, said my neighbor, you’ll see what has actually happened. Jobs have been diverted from one place to another. Yes, yes, for a short time, there may be more bridge workers, but at the same time, there are fewer automobile workers, technicians, clothing workers, farmers and so on. Let me ask you, Where would the bridge have been if obstructionists had had their way?”
“Are you serious? It’s obvious. There would have been no bridge,” I responded.
My neighbor nodded, then said, “Right. There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer.”
Somewhat confused at this point, I said to him, “For goodness sakes, neighbor, doesn’t that support the argument of the government spenders?”
“Not so fast, Draco. In this argument, the government spenders have the advantage again, but only with those who can’t see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. These people can see the bridge. What they can’t see are the unbuilt homes and cars, the unmade dresses, coats, perhaps ungrown and unsold food. Let’s face it. For a person to be able to see uncreated things requires a special kind of imagination that not many people have. With a great deal of effort and prodding, some people can think of non-existent objects. Maybe they can do this once, but they can’t keep in mind a non-existent object the way they can a bridge that they can go and take a look at. That’s why it’s so difficult for them to understand that the only thing that has happened in the building of the bridge is that one thing has been created instead of another. They can easily see the one, but they can’t see the other. The same reasoning applies to every other form of public work, by the way.”
“Every form?” I asked. “No exceptions? Can you provide another example?”
“Sure,” said my neighbor. “For example, it applies just as well to using ‘public funds’ to build ‘low-income’ or ‘affordable’ housing projects.”
“Neighbor, this is a very contentious subject. To a lot of people, affordable housing’s a sacred cow. Proposals to build them come up all the time. What happens?” I asked. “What’s the logic on this?”
“Just follow the money. To enable one set of families to live in better housing, for the same rent or for lower rent than previously, government takes the money to build these projects away from another set of families through taxation. These are families with higher income, perhaps even a little from families of even lower income. Thus, one set of families is forced to subsidize another set.”
“Well, yeah,” I said. “That seems to be the basic idea, doesn’t it?”
No comments:
Post a Comment