11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

The operative word in the question posed in the title of the article is "should". Of course it should not cost you or me anything. That is the problem with collectivist thinking. It leads to collectivist systems and everyone wants to live at other peoples' expense. That is why they always fail. Unfortunately the failure may take place very slowly and cause much pain and societal problems along the way.

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

re repost: sz, the 2nd cut paste response was for another cmt, i didnt realize youd be notified. _JC

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

we print the money. thr is no such thing as 'expense' , let alone 'at other peoples'.'

thr are only true resources, & fair distribution.

which is what inherited wealth & stock mkt gambling (& allowing collection of capital * at all * , frankly) damages permanently. the rest is propaganda to keep the sys in place. the sys that serves only those thieves. think beyond what youve been told, as if discovering the concepts for the first time. see if anything youve said makes sense to you after that. _JC

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

You lost me after "we print the money". Can you restate it in plain English?

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

thr is no natural mkt, thr is a bondage system, the raw flow of which is maintained by Gvt players for taxation & control: & that is called 'money' or 'money printing.' your taxes do not pay for things, we burn it & print more.

for a Gvt run healthcare system 'money' (& expense by extension) is not relevant. only true resources matr. in an unperverted sense, 'money' could be used to facilitate trade & serve societal goals. the corporate socialism that we currently have in place doesnt serve anyone, ultimately not even the wealthy. it means research is ruined (even for billionaires) & funnel systems like 'insurance' are able to skim MASSIVE middleman fees, w further perverse incentives that go w that.

thr is no 'at other peoples' expense': that misunderstands economics. but youre retired now, have a look at the MMT scholars, see if you dislike the re-frame. & let me know in the comments some time going fwd if something stands out. _JC

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

Although it is not clear to me because of the way you phrase things, we might have a few areas of agreement. I am quite well versed in economics and adhere to the Austrian school as presented by Murray Rothbard. If your reference to MMT means "Modern Monetary Theory", I am very familiar with that. It is simply warmed over and relabeled Keynesian economics which is pushed by the establishment and the government and is responsible for most of the trouble we are in today. I highly recommend Rothbard's seminal work, "Man, Economy, and State" as a corrective for that nonsense.

Expand full comment
Jim Ryser's avatar

Agree 100%

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

we print the money. thr is no such thing as 'expense' , let alone 'at other peoples'.' thr are only true resources, & fair distribution.

which is what inherited wealth & stock mkt gambling (& allowing collection of capital * at all * , frankly) damages permanently. the rest is propaganda to keep the sys in place. the sys that serves only those thieves. think beyond what youve been told, as if discovering the concepts for the first time. see if anything youve said makes sense to you after that. _JC

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

You repeated it in the same garbled syntax. I asked for plain English. By the way, we don't actually print the money. The Federal Reserve creates it out of thin air. In normal discourse other people's money refers to transfer payments from taxpayers to the recipients that can most successfully lobby the government.

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

ive addressed this in the other reply: but, yes. as a stand in for Gvt it is technically the Fed (w the exception of 'revenue' already in circulation, which includes 'other peoples' taxes.' but it is still not relevant.

tho i do like the 'of course no1 shld have to pay'. it did confuse me however, given your other points. _JC

Expand full comment
JCStudResDoc94's avatar

& it is useful in discourse to refer to it as other ppls money, i agree.

bc most ppl wont read any further, & it gets a midway point accross. but you have the time to read further! but we seem to agree on most things after all. _JC

Expand full comment