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

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. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi