Real Stimulus: Stop Robbing Us

Just as Murray Rothbard revealed 47 years ago what the State is not, the past 15 months have generated plenty of evidence supporting the claim that stimulus payments did not heal the nearly bludgeoned-to-death economy. Luke Puetz reported that, on average, across the three rounds of stimulus checks, only 26% of the funds were spent while the remainder was saved and/or used to service debt. Positivism’s proponents will invariably reply, “Well, then, if 26% was spent, then 26% of more and larger payments will do wonders for the economy.” But it won’t, and it hasn’t. “Since 1971,” according to Ken Fisher, “America has passed 16 major stimulus efforts.” And what happened in the year after a ‘stimulus’ was passed? “The median growth rate slowed from an average of 2.3% to 1.7%… There is simply no valid evidence, anywhere, that so-called fiscal ‘stimulus’ actually stimulates.” If the innumerable op-eds written to criticize stimulus efforts over the past half century count as growth, then, sure, the (meaningless) GDP was likely bolstered, but seriously, must another five decades pass before the economically inclined realize that those in power aren’t listening? Taking a page out of James Corbett’s book, instead of discussing only stimuli’s futility, I’ll suggest what real stimuli would look like.

I’m old enough to remember the zeitgeist that promoted working and saving as the means to getting ahead in life; today, however, we’re told that getting ahead is somehow immoral and that it’s best to be paid to not work.

In their knuckle-dragging attempt to ameliorate the damage done by state and local governments, federal politicians have only compounded the damage done by their counterparts at the state and local levels, bringing new meaning to the president’s “Neanderthal thinking.” Like lockdowns, stimulus payments, at best, can only delay the inevitable. If politicians and bureaucrats—“parasites” for brevity and accuracy—truly wanted to spur a recovery, and if they must continue doling out checks to everyone, regardless of need, then how about letting everyone keep their own damn money? The fact that most people scoff at that suggestion is telling. “But without an income tax, we won’t be able to fund our beloved public programs!” Exactly. That’s as close to an admission of the following as you’ll ever hear: the parasites care more about their own job security than yours. Etch that in your head. They do not care about you, and, if they think of you at all, they’re laughing at you. Afterall, you likely voted for the lesser of two predations.

If you don’t agree with the parasites’ preposterous policies, they want only to control you. Like lockdowns, mask mandates, and physical distancing requirements, stimulus bills are passed to provide a (false) sense of security. Question the parasites’ efficacy or legitimacy, and they’ll be happy to watch you drop dead, as hydroxychloroquine and zinc attest. The parasites either can’t imagine a government that’s voluntarily funded or they know that their particular pet program won’t be at the top of donors’ lists. Capital accumulation and investment are the only paths to wealth creation, but to add insult to the injury of paying people to not work, we’re penalized for saving. Again, if the parasites truly cared about the people they ‘serve,’ why won’t they let us keep our money? They already taxed our income. Some children are taught that “sharing is caring,” but I guess their parents have it wrong. Don’t you see? Robbing is caring. Bear in mind that the money placed in a savings account was already taxed. Yes, your paycheck was already pilfered by the time your net pay reached your checking account, and because you had the audacity to save for a rainy day, you’ll have to pay the government again—this time a cut of the measly interest earned. And just to make sure you peasants stay in line, the policy of inflation will actually diminish the purchasing power of your savings—a third tax. If saving actually causes the saver to lose money, then the stock market shows why saving’s for suckers. How sad. You didn’t think that the parasites actually cared about income inequality, did you? Their actions and intentions are two sides of the same sinister coin.

The parasites are anything but “public servants.” We serve them, but some of us have had enough. Some have thought long and hard about what has been imposed on them over the past 15 months, and it appears that they’ve concluded that though the federal government’s income and capital gains taxes are more than onerous to pay, the greater threat to their way of life has been their state and local governments. As I argued in December, do those taxes not amount to the funding of your own rights’ ruin? With all the talk surrounding the allegedly dictatorial inclinations of the previous president, it was governors and mayors who shut you down. In April, the city of Port Huron, Michigan—perhaps wanting to stop a revolutionary uprising before it starts—said that it was considering refunding all 2020 property taxes. Possibly realizing that a real stimulus will never materialize, dozens of Baltimore business owners are now withholding their tax payments until they start receiving the public services they’re forced to fund. I hope this seemingly newfound defiance spreads faster than the fear that’ll be used to quell it. There’s no way that those in Baltimore are alone, but because they reject the “government is God” narrative, it’ll be difficult for their brave counterparts elsewhere to receive national attention. Stimulus payments don’t help, as those who are listening know. For those who aren’t listening, here’s hoping we hear more people telling them, “No.”

This article originally appeared on Uncle Nap.