Re: Nanny psychology revealed!
- From: Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jun 2007 14:51:39 GMT
"MLF" <fermanis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:f3pahn$k8h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Your opinion has a fatal flaw. The net result is that the persons
paying the taxes are simply being given back their tax money. It's a
viscious circle, at best.
I'm not sure how an opinion can have a "fatal flaw". It's
pretty clear that you didn't understand my point. Yes, it's
a circle, but it's hardly vicious.
The government does not create wealth, it just spends money it
collects from those who do create it.
So? When the wealth creators create wealth, it comes from
somewhere. They couldn't "create wealth" (what a hideous,
misleading term) unless 1. people had money to spend on
their product (which comes from their salaries, many of
which are gov't salaries) and 2. we have an infrastruture
of roads, banks, laws, etc, which is the gov't's job.
If the gov't quit spending, millions of people would be out
The money would have been better
used to make a product or service that could have been sold.
Perhaps, in this case. But that's a pretty cold and 1980's
way to look at the world (but that's where the term "create
wealth" comes from, so no surprises here.)
If this kind of
research is so important, why didn't the people who stand to directly
benefit from it (the ad companies) pay to finance it?
We have to be cautious here. The press rarely gets science
accurately. While I don't really think of sociology as a
science, I'm still sure there was much more to the study
than the simple-minded factoid the reporter was able to
Besides, I imagine the ad companies sponsor tons of such research.
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.