The View From 1776

Economics, The Dismal Science?

In the 18th century, when Thomas Malthus posited population growth outstripping growth of food supplies, economics became known as the dismal science.  Economic policy has become more sophisticated since then, but warmth, fuzziness, and immorality have no place in it.


Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/23 at 02:24 AM
  1. Thomas,

    The points of the article and your Malthus comment, above, seem both to be somewhat unfocused.

    From what I can glean from the the post, the author appears to be saying that Grayson's characterization of the conservative position on health care (and for caring for the poor in general) was correctly spot on and is:

    “if you get sick, die quickly.”

    Anything beyond that position is called "redistribution."

    The old question of whether the government can force you to buy health insurance (or broccoli) falls apart when you consider that those who "opt out" end up being "free riders" when they actually do get sick, or get hit by a car and go to the ER. Then, all of a sudden they "need" the safety net and the redistribution that up until that point they are so skeptical about.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/23  at  08:09 PM
  2. J. Jay,

    As usual, you contrived an argument by falsely portraying what was said. And rather conspicuously, you built your argument on that of Grayson’s highly reprehensible one misrepresenting the [then] entirely reasonable Republican position on healthcare.

    Grayson was not ‘spot on’, he was indulging the vicious demagoguery common to Democrats; i.e., when you haven’t a reasonable argument to make, counter with slander, sabotage and savage the other fellow with blood-libels. Grayson lied straight out about having read a ‘blank sheet’ Republican healthcare-plan conveniently left laying out; which, on its very face, was so preposterous anything following became inherently suspect. He did not disappoint, because his scurrilous claim Republicans “want you to die” comes about as close to blood-libel as I have heard in many a year. As Grayson is clearly a hero and model of yours, it tells us much regarding your own approach to debate.

    Obama-care is redistributive, something Obama openly asserted when it was introduced. When this atrocity was passed in late-2010, no one, not even its sponsors, could tell us what was in it; and, since it was passed, it has been modified by presidential fiat seventeen times to make it more palatable to the Democrat redistribution-insistent base. Grayson’s infamous speech denouncing Republicans even declared their (Democrat) plan would “if you can’t afford health insurance, we are going to help you get health insurance”, an open admission of redistribution. It was declared from the outset ACA would provide 40+ million Americans with insurance, most of whom could (marginally) afford it but chose (for whatever reason) not to buy any, and that ACA would do so by making insurance more ‘affordable’ (as well as mandatory). In fact, it has made insurance less affordable, and any reasonable interpretation of its provisions leads to the conclusion it can only make insurance still less affordable when fully implemented. It was designed to undermine the insurance industry, with the ultimate object of forcing us toward single-payer, and that is a totally ‘redistributive’ model of healthcare. ACA is structured so as to subsidize low-income people, but specifically not the rich (even to cutting the medical exemption. That, in turn, means the added cost of implementation will be borne by the so-called ‘rich’ (most of whom are ‘middle-class’). This much was known from the very start (even by Democrats), and if it wasn’t, a variety of advocates for real reform did their utmost bringing that particular bit of news to your collective attention. Their warning was universally disparaged by Democrats and buried by the media, who now feign shock over its ‘revelation’. Whether redistribution was intended or not is now moot because it can only be maintained by increased taxes and debt; and unless or until Democrats are willing to distribute such taxes and debt evenly (i.e., not progressively), then it is and will remain ‘redistributive’ in nature. Why, then, are you now in denial of something your own feckless leader admits?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/29  at  11:57 AM
  3. Bob,

    I think you may not be aware of the antipathy of many republicans on the question of health care for the less fortunate among us.

    When at the nationally televised Republican debates, Wolf Blitzer asked, hypothetically, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months, what should happen? The Tea party crowd yelled "Let him die!" Candidate Paul said he makes his choices and should suffer the consequences. And none of the candidates on stage disagreed with that sentiment.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/01  at  04:20 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.