London council has approved in principle what some call a "bold and innovative" new economic development strategy...Maybe in 1650 a belief that bureaucracies can "create jobs" for anybody but themselves might have been bold and innovative. I mean, really, don't get starry eyed just because they're talking about high tech.
City staff and officials with the London Economic Development Corp., TechAlliance of Southwestern Ontario and the Stiller Centre for Biotechnology Commercialization, will form a transition committee to explain why they need more than $1 million in funding by 2010 to try to bring high-tech jobs to the city...So if my taxes are raised for this project, and I'm less able to afford, say, a new roof, then I am poorer one roof and roofers are poorer one roofing job. If the bite isn't quite that heavy, maybe I'll just have to do without a new guitar, or a portable hard drive, and decrease the viability of retail in the city. I'm poorer one guitar and the music shop is poorer one guitar sale.
Now spread this effect across the entire city. This damage to our economy, to our well-being, is done supposedly to attract more desirable employment to the city. But plans like this throw away real value, and real employment opportunities, on investments that nobody is making with his own money. They deprive people of the things they want so that the people who jockey to run this fund get the things THEY want. And who spends the money of a multitude of strangers as carefully as he spends his own?
It's Londoners themselves who build the economy of this city. That $1 million will still be spent or invested if this plan doesn't go through. It will be spent by Londoners for Londoners, on the goods and services those Londoners want. And at the other end of that is -- the jobs that are"created" by this $1 million. Van Meerbergen has it right:
Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen said the strategy is Liberal, "old-school" thinking to "throw more tax dollars at the problem and it will somehow, magically generate jobs."Ce qu'on voit:
The proposal includes funding increases over five years and would be expected to create 10,000 jobs and increase the percentage of high-end jobs in the city's workforce from 28 per cent to 35 per cent.Ce qu'on ne voit pas:
...I want to agree with a drainer to make a trench in my field for a hundred sous. Just as we have concluded our arrangement, the tax-gatherer comes, takes my hundred sous, and sends them to the Minister of the Interior; my bargain is at end, but the Minister will have another dish added to his table. Upon what ground will you dare to affirm that this official expense helps the national industry? Do you not see, that in this there is only a reversing of satisfaction and labour? A Minister has his table better covered, it is true, but it is just as true that an agriculturist has his field worse drained. A Parisian tavern-keeper has gained a hundred sous,I grant you; but then you must grant me that a drainer has been prevented from gaining five francs. It all comes to this, - that the official and the tavern-keeper being satisfied, is that which is seen; the field undrained, and the drainer deprived of his job, is that which is not seen. Dear me! how much trouble there is in proving that two and two make four; and if you succeed in proving it, it is said, "the thing is so plain it is quite tiresome," and they vote as if you had proved nothing at all.From "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen", Bastiat's "Credit" and "Public Works".
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Posted by Mike on Tuesday, September 20, 2005