Skip to main content

The Modern American Economy: An Illusion of Growth

The transformation of the American economy is largely due to the debasement of common currency or legal tender, the disincentives which have followed to discourage savings, and the dramatic changes to the composition and complexion of investment, the largest of which can be aptly characterized as (direct or indirect) government spending at the real yet unseen expense of business investment. 

Whereas direct government spending once constituted a mere 3 percent of American economic activity at the turn of the twentieth century, it has ballooned to greater than 40 percent of that pie today. 

Notwithstanding the rear view mirror economists who attribute growth to spending, purchasing power and meaningful enhancements to the average standard of living follow from changes to marginal (and utile) productivity, not just to the vivacious velocity of money. 

Of course, the identifiable factors which have been popularly lauded for driving nominal economic growth in the new American economy have leveraged artificially-suppressed capital costs, widespread subsidization programs, diminished savings and their attending byproducts of artificial asset appreciation to experience that short-term euphoria predicated upon untenable cycles of debt and myopic investments which have little business even being labeled accordingly. 

So while nominal models may showcase a brilliant spectacle of promising proportions, a sharper evaluation reveals that we have merely been seductively entranced by a dizzying display of incredible illusion. 



This has imparted upon civilization a draconian reversal in the social-evolutionary trend, from refined satisfactions of wants in an increasingly competitive space to a mechanism of debt-intoxicated capitalists who have grown increasingly liable for the bulky Leviathan of government and its programs’ many (direct and indirect) unaccountable beneficiaries, who collectively also face a grave loss once they oppose the very policies responsible for the flimsy industries they’ve built, the prices they’ve paid, the subsidies they’ve exploited, and the asset appreciation and spending they have come to expect. 

This economy’s growth is purely, as famed economist Henry Hazlitt once articulated, akin to one’s addition of water to milk while claiming to have created more of the desired substance. 

Of course, you can get away with fooling the unwitting beverage consumer for only so long, and once the faucets are off or the fraud is exposed, so too is the illusion of growth.

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