Caption: Welfare creates a downward spiral of impoverishment, a reversal of creation of wealth. Why? Because it goes against The Law of Nature for the Creation of Wealth for Mankind.
Now I’m all for governments trying to spread general wealth among those who have insufficient wealth relative to their needs and wants.
But I must point this out…
Welfare does not produce wealth. It only produces residual wealth in that welfare pays salaries which are then spent in the economy to create wealth, and welfare spends, and thereby returns wealth to the general economy, but welfare doesn’t sell, doesn’t generate profit; only generates loss.
And who does welfare impoverish? It impoverishes the people, the consumer, the tax payers, therefor it impoverishes the creation of wealth, impoverishes the very people on which creation of wealth depends to be sustained and increased.
Welfare impoverishes everyone and particularly those who most need welfare, making everyone need more welfare, increasing the poverty welfare creates.
Welfare creates a downward spiral of impoverishment, a reversal of creation of wealth.
Why? Because it goes against The Law of Nature for the Creation of Wealth for Mankind.
Nature is an unforgiving task-master. But the law of nature of creation of wealth is another application of the law of nature of the survival of the species. It requires that man survive its conditions in order to arrive at his highest level. And those states which are impoverishing themselves through welfare (or socialism) are states which are devolving, becoming extinct.
On the other hand creation of wealth shows that it cares!
For instance, it takes wealth to where it is needed, to where labor is cheap, cheap because people are poorer.
The sad thing is that creation of wealth doesn’t take wealth to where there is no wealth, to where people are living very much like humanity did at its beginning, subsistence living, barely surviving, like in so many parts of Africa. Or, likewise, where government insists on its people living in the far past, and by repressive government.
But, again, creation of wealth cares, it creates enough wealth for the humanitarian relief of those in danger of losing their livelihoods, and indeed their lives… when it is allowed to!
And what has to be done when creation of wealth goes to cheaper labor?
New wealth must be created from new sources of wealth such as from science and technology, just as the Americans did when their creation of wealth was moving to cheaper labor with their digital and tech revolutions, and will do again, hopefully, with the AI revolution. That is what kept America on top.
But back to welfare…
If you are not creating a profit then you are creating a loss, an ever increasing loss, even if you break even.
Let’s take for an example The British National Health which is maybe the finest example of welfare taken to its highest level of excellence.
But the British National Health, for all it may generate wealth residually, generates only a fraction of the wealth it absorbs, so the British National Health impoverishes Britain and has been doing so increasingly since it was established… The British National Health has become a state bankrupting factor.
All British elections revolve around sustaining its National Health, and obviously no politician is going to say anything other than, I’ll make it better, and to himself, even though it is making us all poorer.
Loss making welfare, such as succeeded Churchill in Britain, is one of the prime factors that have taken Britain from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world to becoming an ever increasingly poorer, and therefore, inconsequential one.
Welfare, but not humanitarianism, which is one of the blessings of creation of wealth, has to be made to make a profit, and for that it has to be capitalizes, it has to become a joint venture between the state and the private sector, managed by the private sector and taken by government and the private sector to becoming profitable in order to become owned by the private sector, and, thereby, insure its sustainment and continual improvement.
The combination of tax payer capital provided by government, which need not be paid back, free capital until welfare becomes profitable, plus private investor capital, would make a very attractive venture for the private sector, and which any bank or consortium of banks would be happy to finance, especially having the security of government backing. Obviously users start to pay, those who need most pay less until welfare is no longer necessary.
It is all too true that what we don’t pay for we are least considerate of its cost.
I know of a country, a poor county, where the health system works in a very similar way to the one outlined above. The private sector operates it and owns the infrastructure and government contributes tax funds on a fixed periodic installment basis, and the patients pay a small contribution.
The coverage is unbelievably sophisticated and the system works incredibly well. All that is needed, but hasn’t been considered, is that it be programmed for private sector take over when the right time comes.
The only hitch in the system, and it is one that is undoing the system… yes you’ve guessed it… is that government is unreliable in making its payments both on time and for full sums.
You see, welfare must be overtaken by rising standards of living, in part produced by the wealth created by what was welfare, so that welfare no longer exist but instead is comprised of profitable enterprises contributing to overall creation of wealth and prosperity, and thereby the state too becomes wealthier, not only because it no longer bears the cost of welfare but because a wealthier economy provides more state income, and, between the two, government becomes substantially better off for carrying out its essential communal responsibilities.
In this way everyone wins, the people, the state and creation of wealth.
Create wealth and everything that depends on creation of wealth will take care of itself.
All human wellbeing depends on creation of wealth, and that wellbeing is only diminished, or destroyed, by misguided human intervention.
Too many countries have descended into poverty by promising the impossible, by creating massive loss making welfare instead of creating wealth, instead of planning creation of wealth side by side with the private sector in order for welfare to become unnecessary.
Could what has happened in Argentina happen in Britain?
Why not? Only a few decade ago the wealth of Argentina was considered to be comparable to that of France.
And coincidentally, in that same period, France has become considerably more productive than Britain.
The difference between Britain and Argentina is that Britain has a far larger momentum of wealth already created prior to the beginning of its welfare state, but its wealth momentum is slowing down, is being continually eroded by its welfare and will eventually cease and go into reverse, is already reversing, has been reversing for too long.
That all that is considered welfare should be assumed finally by the private sector is fully justified by what the piece, included here in The Last Great Gentleman Thinker, Capital Evolution or Wellbeism recommends.
You cannot defy The Law of Nature of Creation of Wealth for Mankind… you cannot try to outwit it, you cannot try to fool it.
It’s a law, a law which functions by profitability just as surely as gravity functions by attraction.
If you discourage it you will end up reversing it by going against it, for all it seems that what you are doing is good. Good it may be, but it will turn out contrary to being good, whereas, if you keep creation of wealth sufficiently profitable creation of wealth itself will achieve the ultimate good.
Eventually, when mankind achieves plenitude by means of his law of creation of wealth, less profitability will be needed, only the profitability necessary to maintain that plenitude will be required, and for the ever improving of the lot of mankind, as outlined in the following expose on The Omonopoly.
Comments