You’re right again John, but I don’t think it’s insecurity. More like a sense of moral righteousness which plays out as the same false signals that are accomplished thru government deficit spending and/or currency inflation (money printing or ledger manipulation). Stimulating the economy always works initially and is therefore greeted as a success. If it turns sour it’s always claimed that it would’ve worked if only we could’ve spent more. Never is what could’ve happened otherwise considered if just left to the marketplace nor is the diminished efficacy over time looked at. In other words results don’t matter only positive perceptions and noble intentions. This is the reason they have…
a tremendous need for positive feedback and conformance to virtue signaling norms and not to logic, science, facts, reality.
Their reality, not to mention logic, science and facts are all based on the emotional appeal of doing others a good turn. But of course it’s not really them doing it. No its someone or something, namely the Government, who is actually responsible for the doing. In this way they believe that they are virtuous when in reality they are shirking the responsibility they claim others of avoiding. Simply because they don’t really understand the mechanics of free trade or voluntary exchange nor anything of property rights.
In order to truly understand these things it would require a vastly higher level of advanced thinking than they seem willing to undertake. They seem to accept without question the first or second seemingly plausible outcome to be the right one. How many have ever contemplated that the broken glass has just robbed the owner the opportunity to spend his money elsewhere. So when the glass man gets paid it’s coming out of the pocket of the tailor whose suit wasn’t purchased.
Props to Henry Hazlitt and “Economics in One Lesson”.