Skip to main content

Redistributionism: The War on Freedom and Savings

The man who saves has demonstrated an economic value-add in excess of what he requires in the interim. 

This surplus, however, doesn’t constitute waste or deadweight, as some economists and politicians contend. 

Instead, the man who saves anticipates putting this surplus to use in the form of investment or future consumption, perhaps in retirement. 

Indeed, investment of all kinds must first find a source of savings somewhere; this is the lifeblood of all investment, which is patently impossible without it. 

In the case of savings for purposes of future consumption, or similarly the case of retirement, the man produces in excess of his need today precisely in order to prepare for a future time when he may be unable, or less unable, to do so. 

Over the course of life, man degrades in his cognitive and physical powers, and he who saves positions himself to continue enjoying life despite his diminished productivity. 

What’s more, the capacity to work toward such a future, one of leisure, adventure, hobbies and moments shared with family and friends, serves actively in stimulating investment, innovation and creativity to maximize personal and household returns and, incidentally, to spur real economic growth: human beings are motivated to work for themselves and their families, respectively, not for people they don’t know. 

Any system, then, that intends to redistribute those returns will naturally impede economic growth, rendering the productive man worse off, less prepared for his future, and — at the margin — less incentivized to perform productive work. 



In order to compensate, the man will shoulder only a heftier burden — that of the artificial system — that demands even greater measures of productivity that will make him no richer than he was beforehand. 

Tantamount to slavery, this arrangement, albeit inconspicuously, forcibly places demands upon some for the advantage of others. 

While it invariably affects the producer, it also adversely affects the beneficiary who, in the interim enjoys the immediate benefits, faces institutional disincentives to work, to become productive, or to invest time, effort and resources in acquiring the requisite skills to do so. 

This produces a visible net drain on wealth and an invisible diminution of future wealth. 

To make matters worse, the built-in incentives of the unsustainable system ultimately encourage population growth, as beneficiaries birth children into a world favoring consumers over producers, where consumers lack the requisite skills to be productive, self-sufficient and independent, where they are yet falsely convinced of future prospects — whether from income, spending, investments, career or lifestyle — that are simply untenable. 

This means that there will be increasing stresses placed upon civilization whereby increasingly-democratic processes will facilitate desperate demands of the impassioned malcontents who will predictably prioritize their present wants over the long-run consequences of the types of policies they will advocate. 

The politicians will predictably blame free enterprise for the scarcity, for allegedly underproducing, whereas the governmental systems will escape scrutiny as they are popularly measured against their warm and fuzzy intentions instead of their destructive and diabolical track record. 

In the end, it’s easy to find individuals who are struggling, as it’s the natural state of affairs on planet earth. Even where men and women appear to flourish, they struggle out of sight, out of the public eye. 

The caricature of the man or woman who has it all is the consequence of brilliant marketing and media who are in the very business of selling that image. 

Even where it exists in that semblance, wealth was created in equivalent measure to sustain that lifestyle. 

Despite the fiction produced on screen and through propaganda, many among us operate from that false dichotomy between the filthy rich and the unfortunate poor who, according to the popular narrative, continue to endure hardship for no fault of their own. 

People simply prefer to latch on to those sorts of narratives, as they excuse their own failures by invoking an intangible abstraction that, like any false deity, conveniently exists beyond both the scope of logic and the perceptions of man. 

Alternatively, they appeal to those of higher society by promoting specific business interests, targeting special interest groups, and rewarding voters and activists with confidence that they are superior people, that they are more enlightened, more sensitive and cultured, more aware of social issues, and that they will be on the “right side of history.” 

In this sense, the con can only continue unabated as the system creates more apostles by its destructive nature and appeals to impressionable students by its pompous prose and its institutional design.

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