…unless we lose interest, of course.

Add “and should therefore never be allowed to vote” to “functionally retarded.”

We’ve spent decades wondering how anybody with an IQ above that of a turnip would ever vote for somebody (a liberal) who actually believes that expanding government and spending tax funds to “stimulate” the economy would ever work better, or even as well as just keeping them out of the equation.

The main reason is, of course, that we actually paid attention in school and that we, as a consequence, are unable to make sense of something that is, on its face, nonsensical. We shouldn’t even bother, we know, but it’s like watching somebody cranking their thermostat up higher and higher to keep warm instead of just closing the damn front door and all the windows. Deep in your heart you know that you ought to put restraints on them for their own good, but somehow you can’t help wondering just how on Earth they managed to get so utterly oblivious to basic reality and, by the way, surely they must realize at some point that they’re being utter morons.

Instead, you end up having to listen to the clown whining about his gas bill.

And thus it is with the economy and the idiocy of claiming that what it really needs is for the government to pour some “stimulus money” into it. You might feel tempted, if you ever read a basic book on economics, to start explaining things like “money supply”, “investment capital”, “savings” and “where the fuck do tax funds actually come from” to them, but you must keep in mind that you’d be talking to the intellectual equivalent of a garden slug. Those are cretins who would vote for somebody like Ogabe, after all, and who most likely were clapping their flippers like trained seals the other night every time Teh Won mentioned spending their own money on giving it to other people as a “solution” to them being unable to pay their mortgages.

You might as well try to explain astrophysics to a skunk.

To them, having the government take their money, then giving it to somebody else for that other party to spend, is somehow always more brilliant than letting them keep it to spend for themselves. Somehow, having a bureaucrat with absolutely no concept of Econ 101 touch their money makes it so much more productive. It’s magic, we tell you. Unicorns. Skittle farts.

So let’s keep things simple.

Say that your kid is the population. His piggy bank is the money in circulation in the economy. His room is the nation and the toys in said room represent the wealth of that nation. Your kid has a paper route, from which the money supply in his “nation” comes. At some point, he decides that it’s time to increase the “wealth” of his “nation” by spending the money in his piggy bank on stuff he’d like to own, so he goes to Toys’R'Us and shops.

That’s the simple version, the Evil Capitalist one. At the end of the day, his “nation’s” “wealth” has increased because he now has additional toys at a rate of one to one. $1 buys him $1 worth of toys, or “wealth.”

We’ll leave the complicated stuff out, such as how his $1 now contributes to another “nation’s” economy. It would make a liberal’s eyes glaze over, and he’d be back to playing with his excrement and writing “Hope and Change” all over his padded walls rather than paying attention.

Just the simple stuff. The kid accumulated $1 and used it to purchase $1’s worth of goods. It’s the conversion rate, stupid. And don’t let your pet liberal start asking about what, specifically, your kid bought either. He’ll only launch into a rant about how the product is not ecologically sustainable or how the purchase hurt the feelings of the kid next door who was too fucking lazy to deliver papers and spent the whole day playing on his Wii instead.

Now, the liberal model.

Instead of just letting your kid raid the piggy bank and go shopping, you tell him that he needs to hand the money to you. That’s called “taxes.” You then keep a quarter to yourself, you have to be paid to administer and allocate the funds “properly”, after all, and who wants to work for free? We call that “government.” But you hand the remaining 75 cents back and tell him to go have a blast with it.

At the risk of digressing here, we’re making the assumption that you do indeed give your kid the 75 cents. A true liberal would hand it to the kid next door who probably wouldn’t even notice, seeing as how he was still stuck on the final boss of Super Mario Galaxy and thus “less fortunate” than your own kid. Again, you don’t want to confuse your liberal specimen with reality, since one of the hallmark characteristics of those sadly intellectually deficient individuals is that they’ll always assume that the bennies their liberal idol keeps talking about will go to them.

Then they wake up and realize that their mortgage hasn’t been paid, their gas tank still hasn’t been filled and, “logically”, decide to Blame Bush.

But we digress again. Besides, they’ll vote for another liberal in two years anyway.

Back to your kid. You, “the government”, has taken your kid’s savings, “taxes”, kept something to yourself, “administrative costs”, then handed the remainder back to him, “stimulus.” Now he gets to spend it. But he only gets 75 cents’ worth of toys for the $1 he earned.

It’s the conversion ratio, stupid.

See? It’s really quite simple. If you want to make it even more complex, but your liberal subject is probably already back to eating lead paint chips and piercing his nipples with Obama badges, you could add that the nice guy who owns the local Toys’R'Us probably isn’t all that stimulated either. Under the conservative plan he would have sold $1’s worth of goods, but under the liberal plan he only cashed in 75 cents.

The bottom line, however, is that your kid’s room (the nation) only saw 75 cents’ worth of added toys (wealth) as a result of the $1 your kid made (money supply), all because you inserted an utterly useless and needless middle man.

“Ah”, your liberal friend says (if he’s at least as intelligent as a moldy bagel), “but the 25 cents you kept will be spent too!” Sure, but why introduce the delay? It still had to pass through you first and, besides, you could have been doing something actually productive during the time you were administering other people’s money for no good reason at all, thus adding further wealth to the overall economy.

But who are we kidding? People dumb enough to think that socialism will ever work are too dumb to understand even this explanation too. Frankly, it’s a miracle that they manage to tie their own shoe laces every morning without strangling themselves.

We just thought we’d put it out there.

Thatisall.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 29th, 2010 at 2:44 am and is filed under Econ 101, Imperial Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.