“In the economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”
There should be a reading list for citizenship. It could not be required, for that would simply be more coercion. You cannot force people to learn if they do not want to, and they will not want to if they do not see the connection between the information and their lives. In this country we feel that citizenship was established permanently at the time of the Revolutionary War. Perhaps we appreciate our forefathers’ efforts, at least on the Fourth of July, although most likely we just make a lot of noise and simulate the drama with rockets and red glare. But Benjamin Franklin cautioned that while they gave us a republic we would have to keep it. That means it is not permanent, and keeping it requires more than setting off a few firecrackers.
Chris, a medical student, recently attended some of our PTSD groups. We talked about citizenship. He feels his responsibility lies in focusing on what he can control, which is to become the best Emergency Medicine physician he can be. He intends to work hard, be fiscally responsible, donate to charity, and trust that our government officials will effectively handle their responsibilities. He is the perfect citizen for the ideal society, or the perfect citizen for our society, from the government’s perspective. But our society is far from ideal and our government far from responsible.
Government is the social instrument of force, legal and necessary, but problematic. The difficulty is always how to control the controllers. There is no answer to this other than calling on the citizenry. Ultimate control in a society always goes to the highest level of determination in the largest number of people. (will + number = choice) Failing either factor, power goes to the head of the police or militia, and power always corrupts. Today the Patriot Act shreds the Constitution, enabling the fox to guard the hen house. Martial law is a phone call away and always in the name of national defense. If you object, since martial law is always invoked in a war against something, you can be charged with treason.
I used to think that treason was the second worst crime possible, after crimes against humanity. Perhaps I need to rethink this, since we are currently fighting four wars that never seem to end (Afghanistan, Iraq, drugs, and terror). The war against terror is to defend our liberty, but we surrender our liberty in order to fight the war. Why bother if we are just going to give it away? And the suspension of our liberty is not temporary because a war on terror can never end. It is a war against a disposition, something which may never happen and can never be eliminated. Worse, our declared war breeds its own opposition. Can it get more misguided than this?
Citizenship is a full-time job, perhaps our most important. It is not enough to simply focus on personal responsibilities. Society will not run itself without oversight, and that cannot come from government. It is they who must be overseen. Power corrupts and always attempts to consolidate itself. That is just the way it is. The only control comes from the moral and ethical fiber of the citizenry, and that needs to be exercised daily. Our forefathers earned themselves a republic, which we must now also earn by constraining government power, which means leaning against it. Do you see where this goes? It leads to work, from all of us, all the time. Einstein noted, “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Congress perhaps sets the pace here.
The problem for Chris and those who neglect their citizenship responsibilities is that if society sinks everyone goes down with it. There may be a few lifeboats, but people will be fighting over them and everyone else will be in the water. Chris will get by because he is young and will have a service he can exchange for other provisions. But what if he has retired or cannot work? He may have planed for such contingencies but counted on government to safeguard the currency. Chris works, saves, provides for rainy days or golden years and stores his provisions in dollar denominated assets? He can hold his ground, but the ground can give way; the dollar can collapse. Then all his assets are gone, and he is in a bread line with everyone else. That is how societies collapse. That is how all societies collapse. They reach for the moon and knock over their medium of exchange. You better know how to handle that contingency or you will be part of the solution causing the problem.
So I offer a reading list as a place to start. We gravitate to those with whom we share our wishes or perspectives. If I make a list of readings for citizenship it will differ from that of Barrack Obama or one from George Bush, if George has read enough books to make a list. And if you read today on economics, most of it is Keynesian in nature, which from an Austrian perspective is worse than illiteracy. My list will reflect me, which is probably a good thing. I say this because this material touches something in me more than just my thinking. It inspires me. I can think of nothing more important. If I did not love the works, and the authors, I could never have read all this material. Bastiat alone is 1000 pages, and I break from him with 420 pages of Hocking. If this was all just data, twenty pages would be too much. But I have books waiting in line to be read. I take that as confirmation from the physical world. My list might be errant, but it will be grounded in something, perhaps my quarks, bosons, and muons.
Whoever offers you such a list is either handing you a part of himself or trying to sell you a bridge in Arizona. I am not aware of owning an agenda that needs to remain private. I think the world is going to hell, that we have the capacity to understand why, and
the capability to take action to see it does not happen. It is within our power to avoid disaster, although perhaps not within our will. I am worried about the polar bears, the wolves, and the whales. This is not a “We Are The World” song to sing until we like each other. It is more an injunction to get off our lazy asses and do something that meets the requirements of worthy actions people take we they try to accomplish something of value. We can do this. But it will not just happen.So my motives are pretty clear, and my expectations are not that we become something more than human—perhaps just less arrogant and inhumane. In previous chapters we stitched together a theory of human behavior. It is not bad, but now we need to figure out how to steer our dispositions into mutually beneficial ventures with others. That is no secret either. It is not conceptually difficult. People have understood cooperation in some ways forever and systematically for several hundred years. But embracing new principles is never easy, let alone implementing them. Nor is that everything, for we still fall short of Utopia. The cup for all of us on this planet is only half full. We all die. That part seems pretty empty. Perhaps we should be happy that we lived, but most of us are upset that it is not forever. But should we feel entitled to eternity? Would we never sign on for seventy years if that was all being offered? Our existence might be eternal, but if it is, empirical evidence does not suggest that we can do anything to earn it. Life appears largely gratuitous. Yet everyone seems to desire it. So let’s give some credit for our existence to something other than humanity, which might not at this point even know what side it is on.
It is hard to see why we should be entitled to anything. But we can be thankful for a lot. Notice that thankfullness can only be directed at purpose. Blind luck deserves no thanks, as it makes no effort at all. Blind is a metaphor for indifferent. Let's face it. Our lives are largely dependent on forces outside our purview. Perhaps we should give these forces some credit and not presume that we know better than the Universe. Frankly, I do not see how we will make it without faith in something larger than ourselves. Human beings cannot last longer than five minutes without aerobic metabolism. We need something more dependable than that; not religious dogma, but faith that there is something, somehow, somewhere. More to the point, today, before we try to fix something (i.e. liberty) let's make sure it is broken. Providence need not be stupid. We need not be smart. And certainly Providence gets a bigger picture than we attain, dragging along as we do our little oxygen tanks.
So I offer a list. There is no substitute for reading the originals. These authors write to be understood, and we are talking about your life here. This is the most important thing you will ever do. It deserves more than Cliff Notes. This is your life major, not the minor you earned at Stanford of the University of Hard Knocks. And this is now; that was then. It is cool that history repeats because it gives us a chance to get it right. I shall offer you some Cliff notes and interpretations of the originals to get you started. I can hardly stop myself anymore.
There is no particular order for the list yet; it kind of comes together on its own. But here are the authors: Bastiat, Hocking, Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek, Griffin, Becker, Spinoza, and Locke. They wrote a lot, and there are several books from most, but that is not too many names, or books. We can do this. And while metaphysics is more d
ifficult than economics and ethics, we can get by there with only Searle and Chalmers, and maybe we do not even need Chalmers. (Be relieved.)Study for me in medical school reduced to a simple principle: master the essence and address the infrequent only as needed. This lesson was learned in gross anatomy, where Gray’s Anatomy is the gold standard but impossible, while Woodburne is less comprehensive but sufficient. Better to be a master of Woodburne than a novice of Gray. This list resembles Woodburne. These guys will get you up to the point where you feel your opinion matters. You can take it from there. Hopefully my introduction will provide assistance.
For now let’s begin with Bastiat. Like Hazlitt, he is a great read. And he makes the difficult seem easy. People who really understand the material can do that. They personalize it with frequent examples, metaphors, and analogies. This chapter starts with a quote that will look familiar if you have read the Hazlitt chapter. I knew Bastiat was the person who coined the Baker’s Window story, but did not realize how completely he had spelled out the consequences. Hazlitt simply brought it into current vernacular one hundred years later.
Bastiat was born in Bayonne, France in 1801 and orphaned at age nine—for reasons I could not find, in the English literature at least. He was taken in by his grandfather and inherited the farm at age twenty-three. He grew up during the Napoleonic Wars, during which time there was considerable governmental intervention in economic affairs. He started writing late and died early. Bastiat's first significant work was published in 1844 and he died in 1850 of tuberculosis. The Mises Institute has divided his work into two volumes, the first at 430 pages on basic economic issues and the second volume, 604 pages, on Economic Harmonies. Some say Harmonies, written during his terminal illness, was unfinished. I did not notice any change in his style in this work but was impressed with his ability to press on even as he lost his ability to breathe. I intend to follow him along, comment on his work, and introduce you to his style. This is not Frederick Nietzsche, who tried to take over the world; this is a good person who tried to improve it. Vive la France!
Let’s start with his quote above. It is familiar, but the lesson is never ending. We focus on the immediate and fail to foresee the delayed. It is human nature. He is not talking about back then. He is talking about always, like now. Pick a program; they all work the same. How about the 99-ers . These are the people who get unemployment for almost two years (99 weeks). Good for them. Bad for everyone else. Government does not want a lot of people in the streets blocking traffic. So, being philanthropic, the bureaucrats decide those who lose their jobs should not lose their income. And we as citizens should embrace their concerns and compensate for life’s misfortunes. They are out of work. Quite frankly their jobs have moved overseas, never to come back. The United States is no longer competitive in the world and while that is capitalism, it is not supposed to work against us. We are supposed to always come out the winners. So, for example, we can no longer make toasters in the USA for the price anyone-else-in-the-world can now make them. The toaster workers are toast.
Capitalism is supposed to work like that. Capitalism makes everyone wealthier, everyone in the system, but not all are winners and not all shall have prizes. Life has consequences. If someone comes along and builds a better, or cheaper, or quicker toaster then “they will come.” That is how it is supposed to work. There is a period when those who have lost the competition have to find something new. This cannot be avoided, like change occuring upon graduating high school. One does not just take a fifth year. And the capital that employed the USA toaster worker does not disappear. It can seek something competitive and begin a new business. If government is systematically interfering it can make all companies internationally non-competitive and any new business is likely to be in lower paying service fields. But toasters are gone, like televisions, cameras, DVDs, and almost all other manufacturing in the United States today. In capitalism it is change or charity for those out of work. In socialism, however, everyone goes down together. Misery loves company?
Society can either face change or fight it. There is always work available, just not always people willing to take it. And when one can sit around for two years and get paid anyway, so much the better for them. So that is what they do. They exhaust their unemployment, overdose on leisure, and wait for the next handout. They will eventually have to move down the food chain. Manufacturing is finished here. So with the two years unemployment government delays the need to adjust to reality. The unemployed will still have to do it, just not this year.
And how does government pay for this? Uncle Sam is not a rich uncle. Uncle Sam does not even exist. What does exist is the authority to take from Peter and give to Paul. Government can tax those working to pay for those sitting home. If you can figure out some way to make that acceptable to everyone then write Obama because no one has been able to make mandatory charity enjoyable. The unemployed live on the labor of those still working. You can see how this goes if it continues. Since people prefer leisure to effort, the seesaw will tip to leisure. Production will go down, unemployment up, and eventually the fulcrum breaks. Then we can all sit home gathering unemployment from no one at all.
But you say taxes have not gone up to pay for this. True, but debt has. There are two ways other than taxes for government can pay people to stay at home; they can borrow or steal. Both are legal, since government can write the laws to make it so. If they borrow they push responsibility onto our children. The amount is now something like $400,000 that a newborn owes the world at birth in our country. He or she is supposed to pay that through taxes. Obviously that is never going to happen, which is another way of saying that the United States is bankrupt. A country realizes the same financial constraints as an individual family. Principle and interest is not suspended simply because the amount is greater; the world keeps spinning. Debt must settled. If a family realized that the interest on their debt was more than they earned each year, they could not pretend solvency. But a country apparently can. We are. The numbers are there. So are the nukes. Perhaps that is why people are inclined to smile and turn away when we simply roll over old debt into new. I am not sure the American Empire is seeing many smiles anymore.
But wait. We do not have to default; we can defraud. We can print money. Actually, money today is created by computer entries in central banks. But it is fiat money by any name. Is this a free lunch? No, it is simply deceptive. Fraud is usually better than force because people do not see it. The magic trick here hinges on the difference between money and purchasing power. A dollar is a dollar. That never changes. But what a dollar can be exchanged for changes every day. Is it still a dollar when what is buys is half what it bought yesterday? Yes, by the logic of language we still keep the monetary unit constant while adjusting the prices of goods for which it is exchanged. The dollar remains the same but the cost of wheat, oil, and sunscreen goes up. This is simply another way of saying the value of the dollar goes down. It could be said that the dollar is now fifty cents. and the produ
cts would then keep their same prices. We just choose the convention of keeping the dollar as the constant. (This is not relativity theory but it is quite close to the image of two people passing space, both thinking that the other is moving past them when in fact it could be the other way around.) Is there an ultimate truth? Relative to a fixed point in space there is, and relative to moral truth there is also. Moral truth says that the dollar changes value. And it is interesting that aquarter that one paid for gasoline in 1964 will still buy a gallon worth of gasoline today if you measure it by the silver content of the coin rather than the nominal value of the monetary unit (dollar). Fiat money is the source of all illicit government strength because it is so difficult to understand.
Beg, borrow, or steal, some human beings still pays for the two year vacations of the Toaster Workers. Effort comes from somewhere to provide the supplies necessary for their leisure. Food is necessary, mortgage/rent, and I need not go on here. People have the idea that government somehow taps a fountain of wealth. There is nothing government ever gives to one person that it does not first take from another. Always, and forever.
So more work is piled on the employed to pay for those who are not. Someone has to decide that is a great idea, and others have to administer the plan, who then will also need to be supported. The money taken from those working can no longer be spent on other items. Someone sells less shirts because taxpayers have less money to buy them. If the funds are borrowed rather than taxed, then payment is deferred but interest costs rise. At the present time something like 20% of all our taxes go to pay interest on the national debt. This only keeps getting worse. Forget about paying off the principal. The United States has never paid off the principle of any money it ever borrowed. It just rolls them over into new debt. All we have ever paid on this debt is the interest. One can always pretend that principle will be repaid, but there is a name for it when interest costs alone can no longer be met. It’s called bankruptcy. And it’s in our rear view mirror.
Dragons we can see are easier to confront than those we do not. We do not see inflation. For one thing, there is nothing to see, it is a concept. You can look at the check sent in by the taxp
ayer, but where do you see the inflation. It lies in the total supply and velocity of the money, and that is everywhere and thus no where. It is conceptual. And the government knows this. They do not call it money printing. They call it quantitative easing. And they do not measure it by the money supply but rather by the consumer price index. All of this serves to hide the fact that through inflation the government debases the currency. This means prices rise. They steal value from every dollar that you own, while leaving the paper itself intact. First it destroys the national charcter. Then it will destroy the nation. There is no free lunch. Just an ever increasing cost of lunch—to someone.
We are not even near the end of the long term problems here because every consequence in turn becomes a cause. We are in the stage of losing our currency, our capacity, and our character. Do you see why people fail to notice? It is gradual, delayed, abstract, and conceptual rather than visual. Also it is relentless and toxic. Society will die from paper cuts. And few care to see the truth. People prefer the dream. Naysayers are never well compensated. If you seek social success or political office, offer promises rather than solutions. What is the final result of the 99-week plan? Toaster workers get a two year vacation at everyone else’s expense; and government gets to dress up as Santa Claus.
Stimulus benefits are all the rage today. France had them in 1850 but we have perfected the art. Bastiat was not impressed then and would be horrified today. The value of a government program should rest on the value of the service that it renders, never the added claim that it provides jobs.
And how does government pay for this? Uncle Sam is not a rich uncle. Uncle Sam does not even exist. What does exist is the authority to take from Peter and give to Paul. Government can tax those working to pay for those sitting home. If you can figure out some way to make that acceptable to everyone then write Obama because no one has been able to make mandatory charity enjoyable. The unemployed live on the labor of those still working. You can see how this goes if it continues. Since people prefer leisure to effort, the seesaw will tip to leisure. Production will go down, unemployment up, and eventually the fulcrum breaks. Then we can all sit home gathering unemployment from no one at all.
But you say taxes have not gone up to pay for this. True, but debt has. There are two ways other than taxes for government can pay people to stay at home; they can borrow or steal. Both are legal, since government can write the laws to make it so. If they borrow they push responsibility onto our children. The amount is now something like $400,000 that a newborn owes the world at birth in our country. He or she is supposed to pay that through taxes. Obviously that is never going to happen, which is another way of saying that the United States is bankrupt. A country realizes the same financial constraints as an individual family. Principle and interest is not suspended simply because the amount is greater; the world keeps spinning. Debt must settled. If a family realized that the interest on their debt was more than they earned each year, they could not pretend solvency. But a country apparently can. We are. The numbers are there. So are the nukes. Perhaps that is why people are inclined to smile and turn away when we simply roll over old debt into new. I am not sure the American Empire is seeing many smiles anymore.
But wait. We do not have to default; we can defraud. We can print money. Actually, money today is created by computer entries in central banks. But it is fiat money by any name. Is this a free lunch? No, it is simply deceptive. Fraud is usually better than force because people do not see it. The magic trick here hinges on the difference between money and purchasing power. A dollar is a dollar. That never changes. But what a dollar can be exchanged for changes every day. Is it still a dollar when what is buys is half what it bought yesterday? Yes, by the logic of language we still keep the monetary unit constant while adjusting the prices of goods for which it is exchanged. The dollar remains the same but the cost of wheat, oil, and sunscreen goes up. This is simply another way of saying the value of the dollar goes down. It could be said that the dollar is now fifty cents. and the produ
cts would then keep their same prices. We just choose the convention of keeping the dollar as the constant. (This is not relativity theory but it is quite close to the image of two people passing space, both thinking that the other is moving past them when in fact it could be the other way around.) Is there an ultimate truth? Relative to a fixed point in space there is, and relative to moral truth there is also. Moral truth says that the dollar changes value. And it is interesting that aquarter that one paid for gasoline in 1964 will still buy a gallon worth of gasoline today if you measure it by the silver content of the coin rather than the nominal value of the monetary unit (dollar). Fiat money is the source of all illicit government strength because it is so difficult to understand.Beg, borrow, or steal, some human beings still pays for the two year vacations of the Toaster Workers. Effort comes from somewhere to provide the supplies necessary for their leisure. Food is necessary, mortgage/rent, and I need not go on here. People have the idea that government somehow taps a fountain of wealth. There is nothing government ever gives to one person that it does not first take from another. Always, and forever.
So more work is piled on the employed to pay for those who are not. Someone has to decide that is a great idea, and others have to administer the plan, who then will also need to be supported. The money taken from those working can no longer be spent on other items. Someone sells less shirts because taxpayers have less money to buy them. If the funds are borrowed rather than taxed, then payment is deferred but interest costs rise. At the present time something like 20% of all our taxes go to pay interest on the national debt. This only keeps getting worse. Forget about paying off the principal. The United States has never paid off the principle of any money it ever borrowed. It just rolls them over into new debt. All we have ever paid on this debt is the interest. One can always pretend that principle will be repaid, but there is a name for it when interest costs alone can no longer be met. It’s called bankruptcy. And it’s in our rear view mirror.
Dragons we can see are easier to confront than those we do not. We do not see inflation. For one thing, there is nothing to see, it is a concept. You can look at the check sent in by the taxp
ayer, but where do you see the inflation. It lies in the total supply and velocity of the money, and that is everywhere and thus no where. It is conceptual. And the government knows this. They do not call it money printing. They call it quantitative easing. And they do not measure it by the money supply but rather by the consumer price index. All of this serves to hide the fact that through inflation the government debases the currency. This means prices rise. They steal value from every dollar that you own, while leaving the paper itself intact. First it destroys the national charcter. Then it will destroy the nation. There is no free lunch. Just an ever increasing cost of lunch—to someone.We are not even near the end of the long term problems here because every consequence in turn becomes a cause. We are in the stage of losing our currency, our capacity, and our character. Do you see why people fail to notice? It is gradual, delayed, abstract, and conceptual rather than visual. Also it is relentless and toxic. Society will die from paper cuts. And few care to see the truth. People prefer the dream. Naysayers are never well compensated. If you seek social success or political office, offer promises rather than solutions. What is the final result of the 99-week plan? Toaster workers get a two year vacation at everyone else’s expense; and government gets to dress up as Santa Claus.
Stimulus benefits are all the rage today. France had them in 1850 but we have perfected the art. Bastiat was not impressed then and would be horrified today. The value of a government program should rest on the value of the service that it renders, never the added claim that it provides jobs.
Here is Bastiat on the issue:
Have you never chanced to hear it said: “There is no better investment than (government spending). Only see what a number of families it maintains, and consider how it reacts upon industry: it is an inexhaustible stream, it is life itself.”
The advantages which officials advocate are those that are seen. The benefit that accrues to the dispensers is still that which is seen. This blinds all eyes.
But the disadvantages which the taxpayers have to bear are those that are not seen. And the injury that results from it to the providers is still that which is not seen, although this ought to be self-evident.
Have you never chanced to hear it said: “There is no better investment than (government spending). Only see what a number of families it maintains, and consider how it reacts upon industry: it is an inexhaustible stream, it is life itself.”
The advantages which officials advocate are those that are seen. The benefit that accrues to the dispensers is still that which is seen. This blinds all eyes.
But the disadvantages which the taxpayers have to bear are those that are not seen. And the injury that results from it to the providers is still that which is not seen, although this ought to be self-evident.
When an official spends for his own account an extra hundred sous, it implies that a taxpayer spends for his account a hundred sous less. But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is performed, while that of the taxpayer is not seen, because, alas! He is prevented from performing it.
You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. So be it. But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up?
Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation?
When John Q. Citizen gives a hundred sous to a government officer for a really useful service, it is exactly the same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes.
But when John Q Citizen gives a hundred sous to a government officer, and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labor; the thief would do the same; and so would John Q. Citizen, if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite, nor by the lawful sponger.
Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation?
When John Q. Citizen gives a hundred sous to a government officer for a really useful service, it is exactly the same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes.
But when John Q Citizen gives a hundred sous to a government officer, and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labor; the thief would do the same; and so would John Q. Citizen, if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite, nor by the lawful sponger.
Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judging of things by what is seen only, but to judge of them by that which is not seen.
Here are some more samplings of his words on variations of his basic theme:
On the arts:
Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.
Here are some more samplings of his words on variations of his basic theme:
On the arts:
Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.
am, I confess, one of those who think that choice and impulse ought to come from below and not from above, from the citizen and not from the legislator; and the opposite doctrine appears to me to tend to the destruction of liberty and human dignity.
Public works:
Then you will understand that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a laborer at work, with this device, that which is seen; on the other is a laborer out of work, with the device, that which is not seen.
Protectionism:
It is true, the crown-piece, thus directed by law into Mr. Protectionist’s strong-box, is advantageous to him and to those whose labor it would encourage; and if the Act had caused the pot of gold to descent from the moon, these good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any corresponding evils. Unfortunately, the mysterious gold does not come from the moon, but from the pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith, or a cartwright, or a farrier, or a laborer, or a shipwright; in a word, from John Q. Citizen, who gives it now without receiving a grain more of iron than when he was paying ten francs. Thus, we can see at a glance that this very much alters the state of the case; for it is very evident that Mr. Protectionist’s profit is compensated by John Q. Citizen’s losses and all that Mr. Protectionist can do with the pot of gold, for the encouragement of national labor, John Q. Citizen might have done himself. The stone has only been thrown upon one part of the lake, because the law has prevented it from being thrown upon another.
Public works:
Then you will understand that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a laborer at work, with this device, that which is seen; on the other is a laborer out of work, with the device, that which is not seen.
Protectionism:
It is true, the crown-piece, thus directed by law into Mr. Protectionist’s strong-box, is advantageous to him and to those whose labor it would encourage; and if the Act had caused the pot of gold to descent from the moon, these good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any corresponding evils. Unfortunately, the mysterious gold does not come from the moon, but from the pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith, or a cartwright, or a farrier, or a laborer, or a shipwright; in a word, from John Q. Citizen, who gives it now without receiving a grain more of iron than when he was paying ten francs. Thus, we can see at a glance that this very much alters the state of the case; for it is very evident that Mr. Protectionist’s profit is compensated by John Q. Citizen’s losses and all that Mr. Protectionist can do with the pot of gold, for the encouragement of national labor, John Q. Citizen might have done himself. The stone has only been thrown upon one part of the lake, because the law has prevented it from being thrown upon another.
Therefore, that which is not seen supersedes that which is seen, and at this point there remains, as the residue of the operation, a piece of injustice, and, sad to say, a piece of injustice perpetrated by the law!
Credit:
But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the money itself; money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of products. Now, it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more products than that country contains.
Foreign occupation:
It is not the object of this treatise to criticize the intrinsic merit of the public expenditure as applied to Algeria, but I cannot withhold a general observation. It is that the presumption is always unfavorable to collective expenses by way of tax. Why? For this reason: First, justice always suffers from it in some degree. Since John Q. Citizen had labored to gain his money, in the hope of receiving a gratification from it, it is to be regretted that the exchequer should interpose, and take from John Q. Citizen this gratification, to bestow it upon another. Certainly, it behooves the exchequer, or those who regulate him, to give good reasons for this. It has been shown that the State gives a very provoking one, when it says, “With this money I shall employ workmen;” for John Q. Citizen (as soon as he sees it) will be sure to answer, “It is all very fine, but with this money I might employ them myself”.
Right to work:
He says to it, “You must give me work, and more than that, lucrative work. I have foolishly fixed upon a trade by which I lose ten percent. If you impose a tax of twenty francs upon my countrymen, and give it to me, I shall be a gainer instead of a loser. Now, profit is my right; you owe it to me.” Now any society that would listen to this sophist, burden itself with taxes to satisfy him, and not perceive that the loss to which any trade is exposed is no loess a loss when others are forced to make up for it—such a society, I say, would deserve the burden inflict upon it.
Credit:
But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the money itself; money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of products. Now, it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more products than that country contains.
Foreign occupation:
It is not the object of this treatise to criticize the intrinsic merit of the public expenditure as applied to Algeria, but I cannot withhold a general observation. It is that the presumption is always unfavorable to collective expenses by way of tax. Why? For this reason: First, justice always suffers from it in some degree. Since John Q. Citizen had labored to gain his money, in the hope of receiving a gratification from it, it is to be regretted that the exchequer should interpose, and take from John Q. Citizen this gratification, to bestow it upon another. Certainly, it behooves the exchequer, or those who regulate him, to give good reasons for this. It has been shown that the State gives a very provoking one, when it says, “With this money I shall employ workmen;” for John Q. Citizen (as soon as he sees it) will be sure to answer, “It is all very fine, but with this money I might employ them myself”.
Right to work:
He says to it, “You must give me work, and more than that, lucrative work. I have foolishly fixed upon a trade by which I lose ten percent. If you impose a tax of twenty francs upon my countrymen, and give it to me, I shall be a gainer instead of a loser. Now, profit is my right; you owe it to me.” Now any society that would listen to this sophist, burden itself with taxes to satisfy him, and not perceive that the loss to which any trade is exposed is no loess a loss when others are forced to make up for it—such a society, I say, would deserve the burden inflict upon it.
Thus we learn by the numerous subjects that I have treated, that to be ignorant of political economy is to allow ourselves to be dazzled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon; to be acquainted with it is to embrace in thought and in forethought the whole compass of effects.
I might subject a host of other questions to the same test, but I shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration, and I conclude by applying to political economy what Chateaubriand says of history:
“There are”, he says, two consequences in history; an immediate one, which is instantly recognized, and one in the distance, which is not at first perceived. These consequences often contradict each other; the former are the results of our own limited wisdom, the latter those of that wisdom which endures. The providential event appears after the human event. God rises up behind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme counsel; disown its action; dispute about words; designate, by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call Providence; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not established at first upon morality and justice."
We have a government program for everything now. It is not based on morality and justice, but rather on politics and finance. We borrow money from China to give to Pakistan, but we have no way of ever paying China back and we annoy Pakistan with our arrogance. Mortgage rates are at all-time lows so people can get houses who cannot afford them and the government can expand the money supply. Follow out the exercise of the things not seen and watch where it leads, which includes the death of capital formation in favor of consumption and the elimination of private mortgages. Everyone does not have a right to a house. Everyone has a right to work for one. But arrogance masquerades as charity in a socialistic society, and socialism promises everything to everyone, which is now our system. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. We are almost there. But not to worry. There are more ripples after debt and we can print our way out. Glory, glory, halleluiah.
There is no right or wrong, any more than there is a right or wrong best motion picture. This is an issue of value and value is entirely subjective. But here are the options. Pick which you want and live with it. The two do not mix; it is one or the other. Liberty and the free market offers energy, intensity, and zest for life. It also gives security but only if you provide it. Responsibility is yours, as are consequences as well. This is the grab for the gusto. Socialism promises security, albeit contingent on the beneficence of the state. It also delegates responsibility, obviates self-reflection, moderates shame, and increases leisure--but at the price of boredom. This is the safe (if you luck out), but dull choice. Liberty makes life brighter and provides abundance. Socialism promises more upside but delivers more downside. You will have to fight to keep the free market. You will have to fight to get rid of socialism. That should tell you something.
I might subject a host of other questions to the same test, but I shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration, and I conclude by applying to political economy what Chateaubriand says of history:
“There are”, he says, two consequences in history; an immediate one, which is instantly recognized, and one in the distance, which is not at first perceived. These consequences often contradict each other; the former are the results of our own limited wisdom, the latter those of that wisdom which endures. The providential event appears after the human event. God rises up behind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme counsel; disown its action; dispute about words; designate, by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call Providence; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not established at first upon morality and justice."
We have a government program for everything now. It is not based on morality and justice, but rather on politics and finance. We borrow money from China to give to Pakistan, but we have no way of ever paying China back and we annoy Pakistan with our arrogance. Mortgage rates are at all-time lows so people can get houses who cannot afford them and the government can expand the money supply. Follow out the exercise of the things not seen and watch where it leads, which includes the death of capital formation in favor of consumption and the elimination of private mortgages. Everyone does not have a right to a house. Everyone has a right to work for one. But arrogance masquerades as charity in a socialistic society, and socialism promises everything to everyone, which is now our system. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. We are almost there. But not to worry. There are more ripples after debt and we can print our way out. Glory, glory, halleluiah.
There is no right or wrong, any more than there is a right or wrong best motion picture. This is an issue of value and value is entirely subjective. But here are the options. Pick which you want and live with it. The two do not mix; it is one or the other. Liberty and the free market offers energy, intensity, and zest for life. It also gives security but only if you provide it. Responsibility is yours, as are consequences as well. This is the grab for the gusto. Socialism promises security, albeit contingent on the beneficence of the state. It also delegates responsibility, obviates self-reflection, moderates shame, and increases leisure--but at the price of boredom. This is the safe (if you luck out), but dull choice. Liberty makes life brighter and provides abundance. Socialism promises more upside but delivers more downside. You will have to fight to keep the free market. You will have to fight to get rid of socialism. That should tell you something.
No comments:
Post a Comment