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.


Popular posts from this blog

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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's