no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

A Series of Spectacular Failures

September 1st, 2009

For the record:

  1. Social Security was established in 1935 – they’ve had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
  2. Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – they’ve had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.
  3. The War on Poverty was started in 1964 – they’ve had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked.
  4. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – they’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.
  5. AMTRAK was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!
  6. This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it’s been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.
  7. “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 – after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every “service” shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America’s health care system – – 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record…

via GSC

Comments

13 Comments

RSS
  • KipEsquire says on: September 2, 2009 at 2:44 pm

     

    You left out public education.

    • nothirdsolution says on: September 2, 2009 at 3:16 pm

       

      I copied the missive from another site, it appears to be a chain e-mail circulating the i-net. But you're right, they did leave out public education. I could probably write a book on that topic…

      • gilliganscorner says on: September 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm

         

        Me too. They missed out on the so-called "war on drugs" – that's a good one.

  • John says on: September 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm

     

    So simple, straightforward, and well-known to a lot of libertarian-minded people—yet still a powerful post. Notably missing, as a commenter at GSC said: the Federal Reserve. It must rank among Social Security in terms of colossal failures in the history of government agencies or "private" arms of the State.

  • Bob says on: September 3, 2009 at 9:40 am

     

    Are all of these failures? Based on what? Did they not fulfill their mandates?

    Most of these entities provide services where private enterprise won't. They aren't meant to turn profits, but to provide services that are at least perceived to promote greater wealth and higher standard of living.

    • nothirdsolution says on: September 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm

       

      Bob – yes. By any objective metric these programs are absolute failures. It's one thing to say that they're "not meant to turn profits" but its another thing altogether to suggest that a program that loses more and more money each year is somehow a success. You can only borrow from the future for so long before it catches up with you.

      Most of these entities provide services where private enterprise won't.

      That's nonsense, you ought to know better.

      • Bob says on: September 4, 2009 at 9:26 am

         

        Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – They deliver services where private companies will/can not. They're investments for the broader good of society. You can argue efficiencies, but they fill in the gaps where private companies cannot make profits. Take them away and what are you left with? Society has decided that the alternative, writ large in history, is not tenable. For-profit companies don't provide for people that can't pay – sick and aging poor people, for instance. It's nonsense to think that they do or will.

        As for borrowing from the future, what costs would be left for future generations to handle without these programs in place now? Have you considered those in your accounting?

        • nothirdsolution says on: September 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm

           

          Since you were unwilling to take the time to see whether I had previously answered these nonsense charges (NB: I have), I will not take the time to respond to them here. You might consider, though, that Social Security was a New Deal program designed primarily to get old people out of the labor pool, so that young people could replace them.

          If every year you borrow all the money you need to live, and then next year you borrow the money to live + the money to pay the interest on last year's living, you're going to find yourself up financial shit creek without a paddle, in no time. That is exactly what any program that runs at a continuous deficit does.

          • ZJS says on: September 4, 2009 at 2:49 pm

             

            College is a perfect example…I make good money now but I have less money to spend than I did in college =P

          • Bob says on: September 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm

             

            You hven't answered anything, at least not here. What do you do without those programs?

            Where does "borrow all the money you need to live" come into this? It sounds like you don't like the US deficit and you're blaming these programs. Did you like these programs when the US budget was in surplus? These programs have to run in deficit, just like the US military, the highway system, the education system, public transportation and many others. Do you know anything about social costs and how social return on investment is calculated? For instance, public transit in cities never makes a direct profit, but its crucial to the economies of these cities wherein private citizens and business makes profit. Imagine the infrastructure required (road expansion and parking lots, for starters) if you didn't have the New York subway. That's what you have to look at when you calculate the benefits of subsidized social programs. It's basic.

            Where on your list is the transfer of hard-earned cash to the financial system? THAT was the biggest heist in history and yet you don't seem to mention it. Why not?

            Look, I agr

          • nothirdsolution says on: September 4, 2009 at 7:59 pm

             

            Did you like these programs when the US budget was in surplus?

            No. No I didn't.

            Do you know anything about social costs and how social return on investment is calculated? For instance, public transit in cities never makes a direct profit, but its crucial to the economies of these cities wherein private citizens and business makes profit

            Look, I don't want to battle credentials here. I have a masters degree in Economics so I know a thing or two about social costs. I'm particularly fond of Coase's seminal work on the subject. But the fact of the matter is that the politicized provision of "social goods" is a tool of exploitation. Without billions (trillions?) spent on the NYC subway over the years, industry and businesses would've developed somewhere else. Instead, that money was stolen from Omaha and Muskegon and used to support NYC instead of other areas. Charming way to run a compassionate society, you stooge…

            Where on your list is the transfer of hard-earned cash to the financial system? THAT was the biggest heist in history and yet you don't seem to mention it.

            You're clearly an idiot, now. I mentioned early in the comments that I reposted this from another site. It's not my list. I just copied it. As for not mentioning it, I submit further evidence of your idiocy:

            1. Hang the Zombieconomy by its own rope
            2. Bailouts, Bullshit, and Blackmail: How Banks profit in the 21st Century
            3. In communist America, Goldman Sachs forks you!

            These were all written in the last month, and there are more like them, if you would spend 5 minutes searching my archives. Try again.

            Also required reading:

            1. How government destroys community
            2. The cause of the health care crisis
            3. Without a state, who will help the poor?
            4. Of greed & charity
  • Bob says on: September 4, 2009 at 11:30 pm

     

    So, we probably agree on the Fed, but you call me an idiot. Strange. I tried Home and About earlier, but they didn't go anywhere so I was kinda stuck with the above. The term you should have used was "lazy", but then I guess you prefer being snotty, small, wittle-wee (damn, now I'm doing it). If you can't get your criticisms right with the few tracts above, I'm left wondering about your ability to criticize anything complicated, so why would I bother reading anymore.

    Alot of otherwise socially demure and frightened boys get belligerent when nobody can see them. You come across as a paranoid prick in your responses. On the other hand, on re-reading, I was being a bit condescending. Apologies. Hmm. Guess I'll move along.

    • nothirdsolution says on: September 5, 2009 at 2:55 am

       

      Calling you lazy didn't get me anywhere, except as you rightly reviewed, condescension – pot: meet kettle.

      I replied saying that you were "unwilling to take the time…" and only after you continued to suggest that I was full of sh!t and/or unwilling and/or unable to answer the same tired questions that every pro-state troll repeatedly asks, did I resort to calling you an "idiot."

      If you can't get your criticisms right with the few tracts above, I'm left wondering about your ability to criticize anything complicated

      It's hard to believe that anyone who allegedly understands the evil nature of the Fed could be on the completely opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to all these other boondoggles.

      I would say, "To each, his own" but you're clearly not interested in that approach.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics