Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <28200134@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 19:25:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200134
Posted: Sun Sep 29 19:25:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:40:39 EDT
References: <14@drutx.UUCP>
Lines: 84
Nf-ID: #R:drutx:-1400:inmet:28200134:000:3941
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep 29 19:25:00 1985


>/* Written  5:14 pm  Sep 26, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */
>In article <28200103@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>
>>Whoa!  Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that
>>CREATED wealth. Granted that governments seldom actually started out
>>to destroy wealth, I've never heard of one that actually engaged in
>>NET creation of wealth (such a government would not need to tax people,
>>as it would turn a profit).  Localized increase of wealth is no trick at
>>all for a government, but to call this "creation of wealth"
>>amounts to assuming that the money in the tax-collector's coffers
>>just "appears from nowhere".
>
>
>
>The space program.  The nuclear energy program.  Computers.
>
>Hoover dam.
>
>The interstate highway system.
>
>Harvard.  M.I.T. UCB.
>
>
>Need I go on?
>

I think you'd better go on.  I asked for an example of a government
that created wealth.  In the list above, *NO* governments appear, and
as I understand it, the government behind them all had to tax people
to support its enterprises.  If you think this is not an important
distinction, I suggest you give me ALL of your money, so that I may go
on a wild trip around the world.  I will then claim to have done great
things with your money, and should anyone argue that you might've done
greater things, I'll say: "Oh, look at him, he just goes to soup
kitchens while I go to Paris.  What proof is there that he would have
done anything important had he been allowed to keep his own money?".
After all, *I*'ve spent the money in showy, flashy ways, perhaps used
it to get in good with some corrupt official, but it would be
ludicrous to claim that I'd "made" money -- I had to take it all from
you.

Remember, we've no way NOW of knowing what would have been
done with the money left in private hands, except that it would have
been employed according to what those people thought of as their
best choices.  

People interested in this question should read "What is Seen and
What is Not Seen", by Frederic Bastiat (an essay about 50 pages long)
or "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.

I suggest that the idea of "creation" of wealth be treated as follows:
If I steal $1000 of your money, and make a nickel on it (say I bet
at 1 to 20,000 odds that the sun will rise tomorrow", I've 
made 5 cents, but you've lost (say) 30 cents interest on that
money, so in fact the money has earned $0.25 LESS than 
it would have.  I have thus LOST money, because even if I give you
ALL of it back, you've $0.25 less than you did have.  If I operate
like a government, I'll probably bill you for the "service" I've
performed, my burglar tools, and so forth, so you've probably
lost more.

By the way, private space programs exist (although NASA dislikes them)
private nuclear research would be something I suspect you'd make illegal,
Harvard, MIT, and UCB accept money from the State, but could hardly be
termed (last I heard) wealth creators.  My understanding was that 
colleges depended (2/3'rds on average) on the Alum contributions.

>Of course the money doesn't appear from nowhere, it comes from
>govt. printing presses!!  (This isn't as facetious as it sounds.  
>The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be meaningless.
>Is based on a governmentally created and controlled system of commerce.)

Governmentally Created?  I find that MOST difficult to believe.  What
records do you have to substantiate that government created commerce,
rather than distorting what was there?  In particular, the use of 
non-government-created money (such as gold)  predates official money,
with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of 
ancient Rome.

Government "controlled"?  Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't
explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government 
began allowing folks to sell crops privately.  In short, you've confused
"controlled", with "aided".