Keeping our Economic Balance - A Simplistic View based on physics | Eastern North Carolina Now

   If you are old enough to have played on the playground See-Saw, you no doubt know that the biggest kid can keep you up in the air all day if he wants to and there ain't much you can do about it. Below I try to apply that simple physics lesson to our current economic imbalance. On the other hand tying a simple knot is not so easy either. Leave it to me to mix metaphors in one article. I hope you will forgive me. I offer this merely as food for thought even though it does sound a bit preachy.

  We are in the middle of another political battle over Tax Cuts, Budget Legislation, Government Spending and any number of ad-nausea discussions on how our Federal Government should take care of us. It gets more complicated when you overlay the varying personalities of a long list of grand-standers and camera hogs searching from some attention. When you super impose all these factors over the current scenario, the debate on the actual purpose and limitations on our Federal Government ends up with a Granny Knot.

  When attempting to tie a secure square knot, it is easy to produce a granny knot accidentally. This is dangerous because the granny knot can slip when heavily loaded. A tightened granny knot can also jam and is often more difficult to untie than the reef knot."  (The Granny Knot)

  Here is a simple question:

What is the best way to guarantee your economic future?

  The answer may depend on where you get your income. Using the assumption that you want your source of income to be sustainable and do well the dividing line is clear.

• If you work for a large corporation,a small business or are self-employed, it is common sense that you want the company to not only survive but also grow and become larger and more successful. That helps to insure that your source of income will continue and perhaps increase.
• If you derive most of you income from the Government, it is common sense that you want the government to not only survive but also grow and become larger and more successful. That helps to insure that your source of income will continue and perhaps increase.

  The problem with this scenario is that the government does not create wealth; it consumes wealth. Before the government can give anyone anything it must first take something from someone who earned it. Imagine the See-Saw with two kids on one side (dependent on government payments) and one kid on the other side (self-reliant in a free economy). The two kids can hold up the other kid for as long as they want. This weight imbalance is now encroaching past the 50 / 50 point, if it has not already tipped the balance of workers to takers. The fulcrum of a balance beam of economic equilibrium must moved to keep the See-Saw in balance.

Images from The triplets and the See-Saw

    Two solutions seem apparent.

• Move the Fulcrum closer to heavy side to increase the leverage (DEBT)
• Shift the weight to restore the balance

   The heavy side seems to be getting a bit crowded to my way of thinking. At some point it will become overloaded. What happens if that one kid falls off, or takes his marbles and goes home?

Here is a simple answer:

You and you alone are responsible for where you are in your economic life.

  Lagniappe (thanks to Alex J. Ortolano for introducing me to this concept. How many of you have actually looked Lagniappe up? ): Before you demand that I take care of you financially, I would request that you go to your family, friends and church first. If they don't see fit to contribute to your well being, why should I have to? Christian Charity is based on helping others privately with no fanfare. You cannot delegate your charitable giving to the government. Charity through government payments is not Charity, it is forced confiscation. If you don't have any family, friends and / or are a non believer, then I guess you are at the MERCY of your government and / or Christians. Which one would you trust to have your best interest in mind?

   On Second thought, it may not be a simple answer after all.