Lottery fever hit big a few weeks ago. The last jackpot was more than $1.5 billion. Of course, the government will get its multi-millions. That’s what it’s really all about: people voluntarily giving their money away to the government.
Yes, a few people will make millions, but the government will get money it would not have gotten otherwise.
You may have seen this meme that I hope someone put together as a joke:
Powerball = $1.3 Billion U.S. Population 300 Million = $4.3 Million Per Person
Actually, it’s around $4.33 per person. Quite a difference.
I suspect that there are enough people out there who would support the idea of giving every American millions of dollars. If the government can stimulated the economy through Quantitative Easing which has made people rich through the rise in stock prices, why not make everyone rich buy giving them the money directly?
If everyone had $4.3 million, the economy would collapse. Who would go to work? Who would drive trucks, grow food, drill for natural gas and oil, build cars, etc.?
Of course, with that much money chasing a limited number of goods and services, prices would skyrocket based on the economic law of supply and demand, an economic law that socialists, communists, Democrats, Bernie Sanders, and Keynesians either don’t believe exists, or if they do believe it exists contend that it can be broken for the greater good.
After everything that could be purchased was purchased, there wouldn’t be anything left to buy. That $4.3 billion would be worthless.
Here’s a video of Bernie Sanders doing math:
Who wouldn’t go to work? Probably the same people who don’t go to work today.
If you took all the money from every person in one year and redistributed it so everyone had the same amount of money, there wouldn’t be anything to redistribute in the next year. In that second year, why would anyone want to work hard to make money if he or she knew that their earnings would be taken away and given to people who figured they do not have to work to get a paycheck?
Attempts at a socialistic economic system have been repeatedly tried with abject failure.
The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society as mandated by contract by their sponsoring investors. No matter how much a person worked, everybody would get the same amount. It didn’t take long for the less industrious to realize that their diminished labor would net them the same result of the mot industrious.
William Bradford, the acting governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote the following in his first-hand history of events:
“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing — as if they were wiser than God.
“For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.”
After the utter failure of the “let’s all be equal” in an attempt to eliminate economic disparity, private property and industry were restored. “This [free enterprise] had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
Not only is Socialism immoral; it doesn’t work no matter how good or bad your math is.