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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes