Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Power of The Market: Welfare Insurance


Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Power of The Market: Welfare Insurance

The safety net at its best, is a system that helps people when they are in need. Like when they are out of work and haven't been able to find new work, don't have the savings to take care of them while they are unemployed. Or lack the skills to get them a good enough job that will allow them to pay their bills and allow them to live self-sufficiently. That's what the safety net is there for, to help people while they are in need, until they are able to take care of themselves. That's what the safety net is suppose to be. That's what the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s and then the Johnson Administration should've tried to establish in the 1960s. But why do I say they should've created that system instead of saying that's what the system that they created, because that's not what President Roosevelt and President Johnson created when they established the New Deal in the 1930s and the Great Society in the 1960s. What they created was essentially a Welfare Insurance system, that people could collect from indefinitely. When they are out-of-work or lack skills, paid for by people who work for a living.

I think I just gave you an example of what Welfare at it's worse looks like. This idea that people who lack the skills to be self-sufficient in life, who are physically and mentally able, but just lack the education to get a good job that would allow them to be able to take care of themselves and their families. What was created instead for these people was s system that subsidize people who don't work for a living and haven't gotten themselves the education to be able to take care of themselves and allowed them to live that way indefinitely without anything being expected from them in life along the lines that they would get themselves an education and then go to work. And not live off of public assistance for the rest of their lives. What was created in the 1930s and 1960s was a system that would subsidize people who don't work for a living off of the backs of people who do work for a living. And not talking about the disabled, just people who lack a good education and job skills.

What we should've done instead in the 1930s and 60s, was created a real safety net that would've been run by the states for people who lack a good education and job skills, that would give them temporary financial assistance. So they can pay their bills, but what they would be doing for themselves and society in return, is preparing themselves to go to work or go back to work and be able to get themselves off of public assistance all together. I like at what public assistance should be as an investment in human capital. Not charity and the difference being that we're not simply giving people money so they can survive. But instead investing in people so they can become self-sufficient and live in economic freedom and then invest those new skills in the economy and create lots of jobs even for people who use to be on public assistance as they were. Which would be much better for our economy and financial situation outlook. Because we would have fewer people in society who simply aren't prepared to take care of themselves in the real world. And not have to spend so much money t take care of people.