Skip to main content

We’ve Got 99 Problems and Sound Money Ain’t One

One of the great social, political fallacies of the day is found in the unexamined and nearly unconscious belief that all expressed human demands ought to be realized through the market, that money ought to match everywhere with everything that one could possibly desire. 



The popular refrain on this matter follows from the unstated supposition that the market, an abstract and unidentifiable entity representative of innumerable moving parts and human participants, bears certain responsibilities for others who wish to benefit from its activities, even after those individuals have personally failed to contribute anything of their own to that mechanism. 

Unwittingly, those critics assume those other individuals ought to relinquish their freedom of discretion, or some margin of the product of their labor, to satisfy the requests of the specified few who have done little more than to exercise their mouths in communicating their selfish wants. 

The cohorts of people who identify with this camp, known colloquially as anti-capitalists or more precisely as free-loaders, tacitly imply that the market was born out of decree, to acquiesce to the commands of consumers, or to singlehandedly support the lives of the world. 

The factor of freedom seems everywhere to elude the champions of these ideals. 

On the contrary, a great number of these demands happen to be satisfied only incidentally by the volition and capacity of individuals and their personal property, where any so-called shortage represents a lack of capital, production or desire from those who own those factors. 

In total, a dearth of available options at a given price level represents not a categorical underpayment of labor or underproduction by specific suppliers, but rather an insufficiency of incentive for the producer or that of production by those who have expressed desire for the given good. 

In a sense, then, it is the consumer’s inadequate marginal productivity, or his own mismanagement of resources, which is responsible for the shortfall, not the deficiency of business or the failure of the monetary system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…