Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (21170)	1/12/2005 11:06:48 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 116555

talk about reform they are actually talking about cutting funding for Anti-poverty programs, if effective, should eventually render themselves obsolete. The original selling point of various anti-poverty programs like those that were instituted during the advent of LBJ's "Great Society" programs was to reduce the dependency on government hand outs. It was argued that a few well placed programs could give people enough of a helping hand so that they could avoid dependency later in life. If they worked according to plan, those programs would have shrunk as a percentage of spending or at least stayed the same in nominal terms, therefore shrinking due to the effects of inflation. Instead they grew exponentially, far faster than the population. After it became apparent we had a larger population than ever before stuck in these programs even the Democrats were in favor of serious welfare reform after railing against it for years. Supply created it's own demand, Say's Law at work in a way even he never imaged. Mostly it was public outcry that forced the government to start imposing stricter means testing and welfare to work programs. What program was it that forced you to look for gainful employment? -g- I have a good friend who writes Medicare/Mediaid policy. She has the very best of intentions, no one tries to do more for the health of little old ladies than she does. She sees her job primarily to be one of continuously increasing the scope and funding for Medicare. She sees any attempts to limit the growth of government spending in regards to Medicare or any rationing by introducing free market mechanisms of that care as attempts to destroy the programs. It is not her job to consider that money spent here is money not spent somewhere else, and that somewhere else might have a greater economic benefit for those same people she is trying to help. It is her job to increase funding and coverage. Who do you suggest should lean against that effort? My first example is easier for those inclined to the left to come onboard for, the idea that housing affordability programs have worked to the opposite of their intent. It's a simple supply demand equation. Unrelated government action that is anti-growth puts constraints on housing supply, while government programs increase demand by effectively loosing lending standards for first time buyers and providing down payment grants, voila, price rises! Making housing less affordable. These actions have the opposite of their intent, yet almost no politician liberal or conservative will speak out against them. Who dares to speak out against housing programs? These things are becoming as untouchable as social security. Easy to start, but impossible to kill....or drown in bath tubs.