Skip to main content

Spending: The Economy’s Knight in Shining Armor

One of the great economic fallacies of the day has been the calculus which intends to track the amount of money spent as some grand testament to the wellbeing of an economy, or which intends to ennoble it as some grand savior, as if that solitary figure bears any relevance at all to the desired outcomes of the economy. 

This myth operates hand in hand with the belief that civilizations can spend and print their way to prosperity

Both myths fail to remain true to the modifying characteristics of free economies and money. 

If the purpose of an economy is to enable the realization of wants through the facilitation of trade between mutually-interested producers, and to — as a byproduct — incrementally improve the population’s standard of living, then the metrics must center around the appreciation of the population’s standard of living and the mutual satisfaction of wants, not around the nebulous volumes of spending. 

Taken in bare form, spending is completely meaningless, as it denotes no particular style of spending, nor does it capture the quality, character or sustainability of that spending. 

Ultimately, the propensity of the economy is to increasingly reduce human labor while maximizing leisure, which on balance amounts to the appreciation of the agents’ standard of living, typically by way of cost or labor savings. 

Put another way, this could conceivably amount to a shift or an outright decline in spending, or incidentally to a rise in savings for still future (or deferred) spending. 

Theoretically, if one were to possess everything he would ever need, his spending could immediately default to absolute zero. 

On the other hand, an individual of desperate need could find himself with an incredibly voracious spending habit, facilitated by debt or perhaps overconsumption (or dissaving). 

As neatly illustrated by this manageable dichotomy, we cannot decisively conclude the influence, whether positive, negative or neutral, of any changes to spending habits without an incisive investigation into the quality, character and sustainability of those practices and the lives of those actual agents beyond the theoretical model. 

Taken in bare form and without added context, today’s reports can project a future, or even a present, which is vastly different from the one presently or eventually realized. 

For this reason, it remains absolutely imperative for individuals to research and think critically for themselves, not to lazily accept the regurgitated reports or to subserviently sop up the sterile soup of the day.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world is everywhere desperately in search of that knight in shining armor, and economics fairytales abound in kind to keep the hysteria alive. 



By the time this one arrives after the relentless pursuit of theoretical nirvana, few if any of the original believers are left to witness it, and those who remain are only disappointed to encounter a kid in a cheap Party City costume, and a time characterized by increasing levels of spending, and elevated price levels, but not much else to show for it.


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

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

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