Economic Stimulus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 5th, 2012

Economics 101

Prices match Supply to Demand letting Suppliers know when to bring more Goods and Services to Market

There is a natural ebb and flow to the economy.  Through good times and bad.  And you can tell which way the economy is heading by prices in the market place.  When prices are rising times are typically good.  As people are gainfully employed with money to spend.  As they compete with each other for the goods and services in the market place demand rises.  Growing greater than the supply of goods and services.  So prices rise.  Because when there are fewer goods and services they are worth more money.  For those who have them to sell.  Because demand is so great people are willing to pay top dollar for them.  To get them while supplies last.  This attracts the attention of other suppliers.  Who want to cash in on those high prices.  So they bring more goods and services to market.

In time supply catches up to demand.  And passes it.  Suddenly the market has more goods and services than people are buying.  As inventories grow retailers stop buying so much from their wholesale suppliers.  Who in turn stop buying so much from their manufacturers.  Who in turn stop buying so much from their raw material suppliers.  And manufacturers and their raw material suppliers begin laying off workers.  So there are fewer people gainfully employed with money to spend.  The fewer gainfully employed buy less than the more gainfully employed.  Causing inventories to grow larger as more goods are going into them than are coming out of them.  So they start cutting prices.  To unload these inventories before people start buying even less.  Because they spent a lot of money to build those inventories.  And it costs to hold these items in warehouses and stockrooms.

And that’s the natural ebb and flow of the economy.  What economists call the business cycle.  That goes from an expanding economy to a contracting economy.  From boom to bust.  From inflation to recession.  Something normal.  And natural.  Though it could be unpleasant for those who lose their jobs.  But it’s something that must happen.  To correct prices.  You see, prices make all of this work automatically.  They match supply to demand.  Letting suppliers know when to bring more goods and services to market.  And when they’ve brought too much.  When the economy goes into recession prices fall.  Which tells suppliers that supply exceeds demand.  And that anything additional they bring to market will not sell.  As they incur costs to bring things to market this is very good information to have.  So they don’t waste money.  Leaving their businesses short of cash.  Possibly causing their businesses to fail.

Whenever we Devalue the Dollar with Inflationary Monetary Policy Prices Rise

No one likes losing their job.  Because they need income to pay their bills.  And the government doesn’t like people losing their jobs.  Because they tax those incomes to pay the government’s bills.  And unemployed people pay no income taxes.  So the government tries to tweak the economy.  At the federal level.  To extend the inflationary periods of the business cycle.  And they do that with inflationary monetary policy.  Using their monetary powers to keep interest rates below the true market interest rate.  Hoping it will encourage suppliers and consumers to keep borrowing and spending money.  Even though supply had already caught up to and passed demand.  Such that everyone that wanted to buy something could.  While every supplier that wanted to sell something couldn’t.

Some people take advantage of these lower interest rates.  Some people will remortgage their homes to lower their monthly payment.  Which will give them a little more disposable cash each month.  Which they may use to buy more stuff.  But other people will take this opportunity to buy a large house just because of the low interest rate.  As some businesses may borrow to expand their business just because of the low interest rate.  Not for unmet demand.  These actions may not help the economy.  In fact they may hurt the economy in the long-term.  When the inevitable recession comes along and they are so overextended they may not be able to pay their bills.  They may lose their house.  Or their business.  For the worst thing to have whenever you suffer a reduction in revenue or income is debt.

But there is an even worse effect of that inflationary monetary policy.  When you increase the money supply you increase the total amount of dollars in the economy.  But they’re chasing the same amount of goods and services.  Which makes each dollar worth less.  Requiring more of them to buy the same things they once did.  Which is why whenever we devalue the dollar with inflationary monetary policy prices rise.  So, yes, there may be an initial expansion of economic activity.  But some people will have inflationary expectations.  That is, they know prices will go up in the very near future.  So they won’t increase production.  Why?  While an initial burst of economic activity may draw down those bloated inventories those coming higher prices will increase business costs.  Which businesses will have to pass on in the prices of their goods.  And how do higher prices affect consumers?  They buy less.  So manufacturers are not going to expand production when price inflation is going to reduce their sales in the long run.

Cutting Taxes and Reducing Costly Regulations have Stimulated Economic Activity every time they’ve been Tried

Perhaps the worst effect of inflation is the false information those higher prices give.  When consumer demand rises so do prices.  And it’s a signal to suppliers to bring more goods and services to market.  But when prices rise because of a depreciated dollar and NOT due to higher consumer demand, some may bring more goods and services to market when there is no demand for it.  So you have rising prices.  And expanding production.  Producing more goods than the market is demanding.  Creating a bubble.  Adding a lot of stuff to the market place at very inflated prices.  That no one is buying.  Then the bubble bursts.  And recession sets in.  As businesses lay off workers to adjust supply to meet actual demand.  And those inflated prices fall back to market values.  The higher inflationary monetary policy pushed those prices up the farther they have to fall.  And the more painful the recession will be.

You see, inflationary monetary policy interferes with the natural ebb and flow of the economy.  And the automatic price mechanism that matches supply to demand.  By trying to expand the inflationary side of the business cycle, and contract the recessionary side, governments make recessions longer.  And more painful.  Which is why Keynesian stimulus policies (lowering interests rates and deficit spending) don’t stimulate long-term economic activity.  Yet it is what most governments turn to whenever the economy slows. While there is another way to stimulate economic activity.  One that is not so popular with most governments.  Across the board tax cuts on business and personal incomes.  And reducing costly regulations on businesses.  These make a more business-friendly environment.  Encouraging businesses to expand and hire people.  Because these actions will have a positive impact on a business’ long-term outlook.  And with consumers having more disposable income (thanks to the cuts in personal income tax rates) businesses know there will be a market of any increase in production.

So there you have two ways to stimulate economic activity.  One way that works (tax cuts and reducing costly business regulations).  And one that doesn’t (lowering interest rates and deficit spending).  So why is the one that doesn’t work chosen by most governments over the one that does?  Because governments like to spend money.  It’s how they build constituencies.  By giving generous benefits to voters.  But to do that they need tax revenue.  Lots of tax revenue.  Produced by increasing tax rates as often as they can.  So they cannot stand the thought of cutting taxes.  Ever.  Which is why they always choose inflationary policies over tax cuts.   Even though those policies fail to stimulate economic activity.  As proven throughout the era of Keynesian economics.  While cutting taxes and reducing costly regulations have stimulated economic activity every time they’ve been tried.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Farming, Food Surplus, Artisans, Trade, Barter, Search Costs, Money, Precious Metals, Pound, Dollar and Gold Standard

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 9th, 2012

History 101

Food Surpluses allowed Everything that followed in the Modern Age

Humans were hunters and gatherers first.  When the environment ruled supreme.  Then something happened.  Humans began to think more.  And started to push back against their environment.  First with tools.  Then with fire.  Bringing people closer together.  Eventually settling down in civilizations.  When the human race embarked on a new path.  A path that would eventually usher in the modern age we enjoy today.  We stopped hunting and gathering.  And began farming.

Throughout history life has been precarious.  Due to the uncertainty of the food supply.  Especially when the environment ruled our lives.  That changed with farming.  When we started taking control of our environment.  We domesticated animals.  And learned how to grow food.  Which lead to perhaps the most important human advancement.  The one thing that allowed everything that followed in the modern age.   Food surpluses.  Which made life less precarious.  And a whole lot more enjoyable.

Producing more food than we needed allowed us to store food to get us through long winters and seasons with poor harvests.  But more importantly it freed people.  Not everyone had to farm.  Some could do other things.  Think about other things.  And build other things.  Artisans arose.  They built things to make our lives easier.  More enjoyable.  And when these talented artisans and farmers met other talented artisans and farmers they traded the products of all their labors.  In markets.  That became cities.  Enriching each other’s lives.  By allowing them to trade for food.  For things that made life easier.  And for things that made life more enjoyable.

We settled on using Precious Metals (Gold and Silver) for Money for they were Everything Money Should Be

As civilizations advanced artisans made a wider variety of things.  Putting a lot of goods into the market place.  Unfortunately, it made trading more difficult.  Because while you saw what you wanted the person who had it may not want what you had to offer in trade.  So what do you do?  You look for someone else that has that same thing.  And will trade for what you have.  And when the second person doesn’t want to trade for what you have you look for a third person.  Then a fourth.  Then a fifth.  Until you find someone who wants to trade for what you have.

This is the barter system.  Trading goods for goods.  And as you can see it has high search costs to find someone to trade with.  Time that people could better spend making more things to trade.  What they needed was a temporary storage of value.  Something people could trade their things for.  And those people could then use that temporary storage they received in trade to later trade for something they wanted.   We call this ‘something’ money.

We have used many things for money.  Some things better than others.  In time we learned that the best things to use for money had to have a few characteristics.  It had to be scarce.  A rock didn’t make good money because why would anyone trade for it when you could just pick one up from the ground?  It had to be indestructible and hold its value.  A slab of bacon had value because bacon is delicious.  But if you held on to it too long it could grow rancid, losing all the value it once held.  Or you could eat it.  Which would also remove its value.  It had to be divisible.  A live pig removed the problem of bacon growing rancid.  However, it was hard making change with live pigs.  Which is why we settled on using precious metals (gold and silver) for money.  For they were everything money should be.

The Key to Economic Activity is People with Creative Talent to make Things to Trade

Money came first.  Then government monetary systems.  Traders were using gold and silver long before nations established their own money.  And when they did they based them on weights of these precious metals.  The British pound sterling represented one Saxon pound of silver.  The U.S. dollar came from the Spanish dollar.  Which traces back to 16th century Bohemia.  To the St. Joachim Valley.  Where they minted private silver coins.  The Joachimsthaler.  Where the ‘thaler’ (which translated to valley) in Joachimsthaler became dollar.  The German mark and the French franc came into being as weights of precious metals.  People either traded silver or gold coins.  Or paper notes that represented silver or gold.

We used silver first as the basis for national currencies.  Then with new gold discoveries in the United States, Australia and South Africa gold became the precious metal of choice.  Using precious metals simplified trade by providing sound money.  And it also made foreign exchange easy.  For when the British made their pound represent 1/4 of an ounce of gold and the Americans made their dollar represent 1/20 of an ounce of gold the exchange rate was easy to calculate.  The British pound had 5 times as much gold in it than the U.S. dollar.  So the exchange rate was simply 5 U.S. dollars for every British pound.  Which made international trade easy.  And fair.  Because everything was priced in weights of gold.

The pure gold standard, then, was part of the natural evolution of money.  The state did not create it.  It does not require an act of legislation.  Or political decree.  The pure gold standard existed before the state.  And states based their currencies on the monetary system that already existed.  Using weights of precious metals as money.  That is, a pure gold standard.  Central banks and fiat money are only recent inventions of the state.  And bad ones at that.  For the thousands of years that preceded the last hundred years or so there were only traders mutually agreeing to trade their goods for precious metals.  Using these precious metals as a temporary storage of wealth.  To temporarily hold the value of the things they made.  So the key to economic activity is people with creative talent to make things to trade.  And a sound money like gold and silver to facilitate that trade.  Not a central bank.  Or monetary policy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT125: “Welfare states fail because economic systems based on slavery don’t create enough stuff.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

In the Barter System the Only Way to Get Something you Wanted was to create Something of Value Yourself

What’s more important?  Money?  Or stuff?  Stuff, of course.  Because people work to earn money to buy stuff.  They don’t work just for the money.  Because you can’t eat money.  You can’t drink money.  You can’t smoke money.  You can drive money.  You can’t watch or listen to money.  You can’t live in money.  You can’t surf the Internet with money.  No.  The only thing money is good for is buying stuff.  It’s the stuff we buy that makes our lives more enjoyable.  Having money helps.  But it is only a means to an end.  That end being stuff.  And someone has to make that stuff.  For if no one does then all the money in the world is worthless.

Early economies were barter economies.  People traded stuff.  Stuff they created, dug up, grew, manufactured, etc.  Instead of working to earn money to buy stuff they created stuff and traded it for other stuff.  So the only way to get something you wanted was to create something of value yourself.  Money didn’t change this.  Money just made trading with other people more efficient.  By being a temporary storage of wealth.  Because the barter system had a serious flaw.  High search costs. 

It took time to bring two people together to trade their stuff.  If a toolmaker wanted a pottery vase he had to find a potter who wanted a tool the toolmaker made.  This could take awhile.  Hence the high search costs.  Because while these people were seeking each other out they couldn’t make anything else of value.  With money, though, you could accept money in trade.  And then go and trade that money for what you wanted.  This greatly reduced search costs.  Because all you had to do was find the things you wanted.  And trade your temporary storage of wealth (i.e., money) for them.  Allowing them to spend more time creating value.  And less time searching.

The North won the American Civil War because the North practiced Free Market Capitalism while the South Didn’t

Advances in agriculture allowed larger and larger food surpluses.  Which, in turn, allowed more and more people to do something other than farm.  This unleashed human capital.  Allowed people to think about other things.  Create new things.  And improve existing things.  This created a middle class of artisans.  Craftspeople.  The people that created goods and services and brought them to the market place.  Creating the complex economy.  These people became entrepreneurs.  They efficiently used resources and sold things in the market place the people were demanding.  Not out of the goodness of their hearts.  But because they were pursuing profits.

This is free market capitalism.  The economic system that ushered in the modern world.  Free people thinking freely.  Creating.  Bringing their bold new ideas into reality.  Giving us the steam engine.  The railroad.  Machine tools.  Electric power.  The assembly line.  Free market capitalism brought us these things and improved our standard of living.  Because they were free to enter the market place.  And make profits.  Providing a powerful incentive to make the world a better place for everyone else.  Because when they took risks and worked hard to make the world a better place they could get rich in the process.

This is why the North won the American Civil War.  Because the North practiced free market capitalism.  While the South did not.  Their economy was a slave economy.  Instead of an expanding middle class working and contributing to the economy they had an expanding slave population.  That didn’t contribute to the economy.  They worked in the fields.  With all the proceeds from their labors going to a few plantation owners.  Slaves in general didn’t tinker or bring new things to market to enrich their masters.  For they had no incentive to do so.  They did have an incentive to do as they were told and work the fields.  To avoid punishment.  And they had no wages to spend in the market.  So there was less demand for manufactured goods in the South (in some states of the Deep South slaves made up to a third to half of the population).  So there was less manufacturing in the South.  Far less.  This is why the North exploded in manufacturing.  Entrepreneurs could bring things to market.  And the manufacturing workers earned wages they could use to buy those things.  As well as mass-produce the implements of war.  Unlike they could in the South.  Because of the economic superiority of the North it was just a matter of time before the South was overwhelmed.  And lost. 

When the Roman Empire turned into a Welfare State they had to Force People to Make Stuff Against their Will

Governments can print money.  They can tax people.  They can borrow money.  But the one thing they can’t do is create stuff.  If they could create stuff (i.e., economic activity) simply by printing money then the South would have matched the North in economic output.  But they did not.  Which is why they ultimately lost the war.  Because they could print Confederate dollars.  But that didn’t make muskets, bullets, canon, shoes, food, ships, steam locomotives or railroad track.  Creative people had to make these things first before the Confederate government could procure them.  Which is why the government didn’t procure them.  Because no one made them.

This is why governments just can’t print money and give it to the people.  They could.  But it would be pointless.  Let’s say they gave everyone $100,000 a year.  So no one would ever have to work again.  A lot of people would vote for the politician that promised that.  Of course if no one works who will create all the stuff to buy with that $100,000?  Having money is one thing.  But if there is nothing to buy with it then that money is worthless.

This is why the welfare state will ultimately fail.  As more people collect welfare benefits instead of creating stuff there will be less stuff to buy.  When supply shrinks while demand increases prices rise.  Higher prices that everyone has to pay.  People who create.  And people who don’t.  So they will raise taxes on those who work to pay for the benefits for those who don’t.  So those who don’t work can afford the higher prices, too.  Higher taxes are a great disincentive to create.  Or to become an entrepreneur.  Some may just choose the easier path.  Stop creating.  And start collecting that government money, too.  Further reducing supply and increasing demand.  Raising prices further.  Reducing overall economic activity.  And reducing the standard of living.

This happened in the Roman Empire as they kept raising taxes and debasing their coin to pay for their excessive government spending.  It got so bad that people quit their jobs because they couldn’t make any money.  Creating great shortages of goods.  And food.  So the Romans passed laws forbidding people from leaving their jobs.  Even tied people and their descendants to the land they farmed.  Which grew into European feudalism.  And Russian serfdom.  Economic systems little better than the slavery of the Deep South.  Which stunted innovation.  Lowered the standard of living.  And led to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  But it was the only way the Romans could get the stuff they needed.  By forcing people to make it against their will.  Which is what they had to do when the Roman Empire turned into a welfare state.  And the creators quit creating.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Liberal Opines on things Economic, Confirms why they Suck at Creating Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 16th, 2011

Liberals don’t know Business or Jobs but they have their Big Keynesian Words

If you want to know why liberals are so bad at stimulating economic activity just read Paul Krugman’s Wages and Employment, Again (Wonkish) posted 1/16/2011 on The New York Times.  He pontificates with an erudite air of all-knowing condescension.  He’s smart.  And he wants to make sure you get this.  So he writes with big words and references big demand-side macroeconomic theories that he and his kind accept as undisputed fact.  Despite what the lessons of history say. 

Krugman is a Keynesian.  So, as a Keynesian, he knows nothing about business.  But, like a Keynesian, that doesn’t stop him from opining on the subject of business.

Here’s a fundamental truth (FT) about business.  FT 1:  If you make the cost of doing business high, you will reduce the amount of business a business does.  Here’s another.  FT 2:  If the people are NOT buying whatever they’re selling, this will also reduce the amount of business a business does.  A couple of key things a business needs here.  To have the cost of doing business kept low enough so they can sell at a price that makes them competitive in the market place.  And they need people to have jobs so they can buy their competitively priced goods or services they place into the market place.

Liberals never seem to get either of these points.

High Wages have never Stimulated Economic Activity

Keynesians believe if you give money to people that fixes everything.  When Krugman says:

…I’ve also argued a number of times that cutting wages now would probably make the slump worse, not better.

That’s Keynesian.  You cut wages and the people have less money spend.  So that’s why Keynesians are all about high wages.  Of course, they miss the other side of high wages.  High wages mean fewer jobs.  Because high wages limit the number of employees a business can hire and still sell at prices that are competitive in the market place.

High wages have never stimulated economic activity.  They just raise costs.  This let the Japanese take huge chunks of market share away from the Big Three.  And it’s bankrupting our big blue cities and states that are drowning in debt because of their public sector union contracts.  If Krugman was right, these cities would be booming in economic activity because of those fat public sector pay and benefits.  But they’re not.  The only thing those high wages are doing is bankrupting these cities and states.

Liberals never seem to get this point.  So they trade off economic activity for votes, blissfully unaware of the extent of economic damage they’re doing.  Or they’re aware and they just don’t care.

Easy Money begets Irrational Exuberance which begets Asset Bubbles which begets Recessions

Another favorite of the Keynesians is manipulating interest rates.

…a rise in the real money supply reduces interest rates, leading to a rise in demand.

Read ‘a rise in real money supply‘ as printing money.  The idea here is to make money cheap and plentiful so people will borrow it to buy things.  Like houses.  Like they did during Bill Clinton’s and George W Bush’s presidencies.  And, boy, did they.  Times were good.  Real good.  Only one problem.  Irrational exuberance.

Clinton and Bush thought they found the magical economic elixir.  Home ownership.  So they did everything in their power to extend homeownership.  Even to the people who couldn’t afford it.

Easy money.  Monetary policy that keeps money cheap and plentiful.  To entice people to borrow.  And they were.  Borrowing.  And buying houses.  So much so that they bid up the prices into a huge asset bubble.  Meanwhile, people who couldn’t afford to buy a house were buying houses, too.  The federal government pushed lenders to lend. Or face the consequences.  Be investigated for discriminatory lending.  Or, worse, suffer the public spectacle of having Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton publically calling them racist (a lot of the inner city poor were black).  So they came up with some creative ways to qualify unqualified people for mortgages.  We call them subprime mortgages.  And we know how those came back to bite us in the ass.

The problem with bubbles is that they burst.  And when they do, the life blows out of the economy like the air out of a popped balloon.  Deflationary spirals often follow.  And nasty, horrible and painfully long recessions.

Liberals never seem to get this point, either.  You’d think that they would as it has happened so often.

For Narcissists, it’s not the economy.  It’s their Egos, Stupid.

Krugman’s column really shows the problems with liberals.  They’re a bunch of narcissists.  Who love their superior minds.  They love to hear themselves talk.  And love to read what they write.  They write to impress.  And to stimulate themselves.  If you know what I mean.  Only those in his elite circle can understand what the hell he is writing about.  Not us.  The sloped-brow, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools.  We just work and live in the real world.  Raise our families.  And pay our taxes.

Liberals like to complicate things.  And to try to control the complex.  The economy will work fine on its own.  And when it does we experience some of the greatest economic expansions.   But when they tinker with their Ivy League knowledge, bad things typically happen.  Such as the subprime mortgage crisis.  The Great Recession.  Even the Great Depression.  All of which resulted from liberal tinkering.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #39: “Socialism is easier said than done.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 9th, 2010

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Socialism as a political/economic theory is pretty involved.  With an involved history.  And if you’re suffering insomnia one night I recommend reading some of it with a glass of warm milk.  Should put you right to sleep.

Let me simplify it a bit.  To begin with, by ‘socialism’ I mean any form of collectivism (socialism, communism, fascism, statism, social democracy, etc.).  They’re all similar.  Just variations on a theme.  And they all suffer the same defects.  Three of which I summarize here:

  • Public (instead of private) ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange
  • Put the common good before individual wants or desires
  • Equality of outcomes

That’s not everything.  But it’s the 3 big reasons why socialism fails.  Basically, socialism is the opposite of capitalism.  In fact, socialism was created to defeat capitalism.  The East-West rivalry during the Cold War was the final showdown between the two systems.  And we know how that turned out.  (In case you don’t, capitalism won).

Public (instead of private) ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange

Mikhail Gorbachev asked the great Margaret Thatcher how she fed her people.  Her reply stunned him.  She did nothing.  The Soviet Union was struggling to feed her people with their socialist command economy.  And they couldn’t do it.  They who had great tracts of some of the most fertile farmland in the world.  And yet they still had to import grain from their arch nemesis.  The United States.  To keep famine at bay.  The free markets of capitalism didn’t have to struggle to feed her people, though.  The United States had food to spare.  And even though Great Britain is an island nation that had to import much of her food, there were no famine fears in Great Britain.  The socialist just couldn’t understand how that was possible.

One of the problems with socialism is that it ignores market forces.  And perverts the economic decision making process.  In a free market, market forces maximize the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses.  The market does this through the laws of supply and demand.  And prices.  Things high in demand but low in supply have high prices.  This ensures there is enough of that supply available for those who really need it.  Anyone who pushed a car to the gas pump during the gas shortages in the 1970s understands this.  When the Nixon administration kept prices artificially low, everyone bought and used gas until the supply ran out.  If we had let prices rise to their true market price, those who didn’t absolutely need gas would have cut back on their purchases, leaving gas available to those who really needed it and were willing to pay a high price for it.

When the state takes over the economy, politicians make economic decisions for political reasons.  They ignore the ‘invisible hand’ of the market place.  In the Soviet Union, the state boasted about its industrial output and filled stores with tractor parts no one wanted to buy.  Meanwhile, people stood in line for hours in hopes of buying soap or toilet paper.  And no matter how hard they tried they just couldn’t increase the yield of some of the world’s most fertile farmland.

Put the common good before individual wants or desires

Doing what’s best for the common good sounds noble.  And easy to do.  We all agree our children should be safe.  And should have enough to eat.  And that our schools should serve them breakfast each morning.  And teach them about contraception.  Well, okay, it’s not that easy to do.  Because different people want different things.  And different people think different things are better for the common good.

This is the problem of putting the common good before our individual wants or desires.  Few can agree on what the common good is.  We know our own wants and desires.  But we have no idea what other people want or desire.  Unless we ask them.  But does that even help in determining the common good?  Get a group of your friends and family together.  Make it at least 10 people.  Now get the ten of you to agree on a movie to see.  You know what will happen?  First of all, you’ll waste a lot of time saying, “I don’t care.  What do you want to see?”  Then people will start suggesting movies.  And for every one suggested, someone will vote it down.  This will go on until you finally arrive at a movie that no one wants to see.  But because it’s the movie everyone hates the least, everyone’s willing to settle for it.

Now imagine that little exercise with a thousand people.  The agreeing process will be even more difficult.  In fact, it may be impossible.  It is very unlikely that one thousand people will agree to anything.  And if they try they will waste an enormous amount of time in the process.  No.  Someone will have to decide for the group.  Someone will have to weigh everyone’s opinion and decide what is best for the common good. No matter how many people disagree with this one person’s decision.  F.A. Hayek wrote a book about this.  The Road to Serfdom.  He said socialism ends in dictatorship.  Because there’s no efficient means to determine what’s best for the common good.  He predicted this would happen in Germany with their creeping state socialism.  And Adolf Hitler proved him right.

Equality of Outcomes

If a business has a good year, they tend to be more generous at the holidays.  Let’s say a business owner wants to give out some Christmas bonuses to thank her employees for all their hard work.  She goes to her accountant.  Asks what’s the maximum she can give out without giving herself any cash-flow problems at the beginning of the new year (taxes, insurance, etc.).  The accountant crunches some numbers and says $50,000.  If she has 15 employees, that’s about $3,300 each.  Which should make for a pretty Merry Christmas.  Now, let’s say she has 125 employees.  That works out to a $400 bonus per employee.   Which won’t be quite as merry.

The lesson learned?  The more people included in the getting of something, the less each one gets.  And so it is with socialism.  The only way to get equality in outcomes is to give everyone less.  Sure, we can afford to give Congress people a Cadillac health insurance plan.  But we could never afford to give the same coverage to everyone.  To be able to give coverage to all the people, each person will have to get less.

And they will continue to get less.  As costs go up, it is difficult to maintain the same level of government benefits.  Eventually, they’ll have to raise taxes to cover the higher costs.  And when they can’t raise taxes anymore, they’ll have to reduce the amount of benefits.  Or, in other words, they’ll have to ration benefits.  A bureaucrat will have to decide who should get what.  Which could easily turn health care into politics.  A political opponent needs an expensive cancer treatment?  So sorry.  We’ve already reached our quota this year.  Try again next year.

Socialism is Slavery

What it comes down to is this; socialism really fails for one reason.  It goes against human nature.  It only works when we sacrifice our wants and desires so that others may have their wants and desires.  It’s not trying to keep up with the Jones.  It’s helping the Jones get ahead of you.  It’s living your life to serve others.  And there’s another word for that.  Slavery.  Hence the title of Hayek’s book.  The Road to Serfdom.  For socialism to work, the state must become a dictatorship.  And we must become its slaves.  But few willingly volunteer for servitude.  So, given the choice, we will ultimately choose to make socialism fail.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,