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

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 …

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…

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…