“Government Spending” vs. “Investing In People”: Words Matter

Written by John (the other John).

When it comes to government appropriations of taxpayer money, how a person interprets the spending proposal determines if they refer to it as “government spending” or “wasteful spending” or “investing in people”. Regardless of the project: HS2, a bridge, a road, NHS, welfare spending, fakefugees, education, etc…, some refer to it as “spending” while others refer to it as “investing”. This especially applies to the appropriation being on people.

When it comes to people, some are good investments and some are bad investments. For the latter group of people, anything you spend on them is a total waste of money; these people will never be a benefit to society, and they instead will be a public-burden from cradle to grave. And despite this generational failure of these people, the reply from my adversaries is that those people are an “investment”, and despite past failures with these people, their solution is to “invest“ even MORE money on them.

So my response is simple; yes, perhaps we should treat people like investments (like stocks in the stock market). Because if we do so, we can then decide on our own who is worth investing money into so to provide a return on our investment (essentially, a “blue chip” person), and alternatively who is not worth investing into (essentially, a “junk bond” of a person) and thus invest zero into them and thus allow these people to dither away.

We all know people who are completely useless and worthless, thus zero taxpayer money should be wasted on them (whether we use the word “spend” or “invest”). Western nations have been suckers for too long by wasting money on such people, and now many Western nations are approaching financial Bankruptcy.