Category: political economy

The Slow Bullet

Modern government finance is like Russian Roulette … but with incredibly slow bullets.

We spend money. We create money out of thin air. We borrow it. We promise the Moon. We deliver rocks. With each action, we spin the chamber and pull the trigger. That slowround doesn’t immediately hit, so we do it again.

Calling the perennial deficits and ballooning debt a “predictable crisis,” Nick Gillespie at Reason writes that our federal government’s debt “is already choking down economic growth, but in the future, it could lead to ‘sudden inflation,’ and ‘a loss of confidence in the federal government’s ability or commitment to repay its debts in full.’” And worse: “‘Such a crisis could spread globally’ causing some ‘financial institutions to fail.’ That’s all according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which has been warning Americans about the long-term consequence of the ballooning debt for years.”

This is an old warning. I have been talking about it for years, too. So have you. But once politicians start playing the game, it’s hard for them to stop. They see and we see the benefits, but that slow motion slug has yet to strike the target.

Gillespie makes a better analogy than “slow bullets” (which don’t exist): “Like the coronavirus, the debt problem has the potential to seemingly appear out of the blue and turn our world upside down in a matter of weeks.”

Nassim Nicholas Taleb gained fame talking about “black swans,” major events we cannot predict. But he insists that the financial crisis resulting from government overspending is not a black swan. It’s predictable. We just do not know when.

Here’s a fourth analogy:

In free fall, you don’t feel a thing … until you hit the pavement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags black swan, debt, deficits, imprudence

ideological culture political economy

Cash Machine Cachet

Shutting down capitalism almost worldwide may prove to be the grandest disaster of all time. Folks on the margin of poverty in poor countries are already starving. Though scads of people seem to think we could ride out a lockdown indefinitely just by cashing government checks, the problem is that if we don’t produce, we cannot buy and consume products.

It’s not about money, or profits as such: “It’s the productivity, stupid!”

Elon Musk put it this way: “If you don’t make stuff, there’s no stuff.”

A “universal basic income” won’t help if the re-distributed money chases few-to-no goods.

So how did we come to believe that we can just shut down most business activity and still survive?

Maybe the idea seems plausible because many people already do not work to survive. As their numbers have increased, our civilization has forgotten that they survive upon the work of others.

We guffaw at young children who, when their parents say something they want is too expensive, they innocently respond, ‘well, just go to the cash machine!’ But the more people rely upon checks and bank deposits from the government — for any reason — the harder it is to remember that the power to buy stuff doesn’t ultimately come from government. With taxation, redistribution and inflation thrown into the mix, even adults think of government as Cash Machine.

And the Cash Machine as a model for the economy.

To fight a virus, the world has shut down production — as if we do not survive by producing goods in order to consume them.

Government has reduced capitalism — and us — to absurdity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Tax Credits

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags ATM, money, wealth

ideological culture political economy

The “Failure” of Capitalism?

Post author By Redactor
Post date April 20, 2020
3 Comments on The “Failure” of Capitalism?

bully, economy, Covid, corona virus, Wuhan, epidemic, pandemic,

“As the lock-downs come to an end,” writes economist Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan, “it will be expected by many — including many not on the political left — that the economy will pick-up at about where it was before the lock-downs.”

Mc Kiernan thinks a popular misconception will get in the way.

Those who see the economy as “a kernel of processes that take inputs and produce outputs based upon purely technologic considerations” will let this techocratic model cloud their thinking. Viewing this “kernel” as producing not only “everything necessary to maintain itself” but also, and more importantly, a surplus that they treat as a zero sum affair — requiring the State to redistribute — they will regard the re-start as if a mere flipping on of a switch.

But the economy is not something to be un-plugged and plugged back in, and the lock-down super-quarantine was not a mere interruption of service. It was a huge blow that will demand uncountable adjustments. Those quite necessary adjustments may seem random, even wild, and because of this those on the “political left” will, Mc Kiernan predicts, do what they always do: “diagnose the failure to restore the economy quickly as ‘a failure of capitalism.’”

In other words, the bully knocks the victim down, stomps on him, and then taunts him for not getting up right away.

Still worse: those taunts will become excuses for more kicking and stomping. And the flailing economy will be seen as all the more justification for more of the bully-boy Big Government policies that caused the “failure.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags bully, corona virus, covid, economy, epidemic, pandemic, Wuhan

free trade & free markets national politics & policies political economy

Cure and Consequences

From the beginning of the panic-induced shutdown of much of what we call “the economy,” many of us were wondering if the cure might not become worse than the coronavirus disease.

The ramifications of the near-total curtailment of the production, processing and movement of goods and services? Potentially disastrous.

The notion that politicians and bureaucrats inhabit that sweet spot which allows them to distinguish “essential” from “non-essential” work activities? Dubious at best.

It smacks of what F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit” and “the pretense of knowledge.” The consequences of the shutdown have from the first suggested a tragedy in the making.

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner’s Emma Colton reported on a tweet: “Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie warned that the United States could face food shortages due to the ‘brittle’ supply chain, bankrupting farmers and forcing them to euthanize livestock.”

Massie does not mince words: “We are weeks, not months, away from farmers euthanizing animals that would have been sold for meat/food. Also, fruits and vegetables are going to rot in the fields.”

The late psychiatrist Thomas Szasz liked to use a word applicable here: iatrogenic. Doctor-caused.

The insistence that President Trump follow every jot and tittle of advice from Dr. Anthony Fauci and the federal medical establishment may provide an object lesson on why we must not trust “doctors” and “scientists” to make policy alone.

They specialize.

And our commercial society (as Adam Smith called “the economy”) is the very opposite: a veritable cosmos of human interaction.

Which makes the politicization of medical doctoring potentially quite fatal, as Rep. Massie warns.

Just ask anyone who’s lived through Communism’s command economy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

ideological culture political economy too much government

Ex-Californians

Texas, California, democracy, migration, immigration,

California, “the U.S. state most synonymous with all varieties of growth — vegetal, technological, and human — is at the precipice of its first-ever population decline,” writes Derek Thompson of The Atlantic. And folks in other states like Texas and Idaho are none too happy.

You see, the Californians fleeing are finding new homes elsewhere. Especially in Texas and Idaho.

Oddly, Mr. Thompson breezes by the biggest source of anxiety: ideology. “Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a warning on Twitter to Californians moving to his state: ‘Remember those high taxes, burdensome regulations, & socialistic agenda advanced in CA? We don’t believe in that.’ The sentiment was echoed in various warnings in Dallas newspapers about the awful ‘California-ing’ of North Texas.” Thompson quickly moves on to interrogate how real the general exodus from the Golden State is.

Which is interesting — but much more important is the main worry about all immigration: will these new citizens vote to overturn the order that attracted them in the first place?

There is certainly anecdotal evidence that this can be a real problem.

Also not mentioned in the The Atlantic squib is just how messed up California now is.

What can be done? The idea humorously floated by an Idaho politician — a “$26 billion wall to keep out people moving from the Golden State” — is just a joke.

And secession/expulsion of the 23rd state in the union is not realistic, either.

What is realistic is for non-California politicians to float in the U.S. Congress a willingness to break up the state into separate pieces, creating at least two new states. At least then, Jefferson State citizens could put up with West California émigrés.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. There are very serious political problems of representation in California that breaking up could help fix, by increasing the number of legislators and minimizing the ratio between representatives and the people they serve.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags California, democracy, immigration, migration, Texas

free trade & free markets political economy

Bitcoin to the Rescue

Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, Venezuella, freedom, privacy, cash, money

I own no Bitcoin; it’s not my thing. The blockchain concept Bitcoin is based upon seems clever, sure, but I often curse at my “devices,” so only my politics prevents me from full-blown Luddism.

Besides, when I think “the people’s money” I don’t think “private fiat currency.” Which is what Bitcoin sure looks like to me.

But to quote from these very pages, “When times get tough, the tough … switch currencies.”

And times cannot get much tougher than in Venezuela right now. No wonder “many are turning to digital assets such as Bitcoin as an alternative to the Venezuelan bolivar,” writes Matthew Di Salvo for the BBC.

“Critics say Bitcoin and other cryptos — there are more than 1,600 globally — are unstable, use too much energy, and are used by money launderers or those wanting to buy illicit goods on the web,” Di Salvo explains.

These points need addressing. I’ll try:

A wannabe money will be as unstable as investor demand. When actually used as money, though, we may expect more stability. And Bitcoin is deflationary, so it should be more stable than government money.
As if our banks and ATMs don’t use energy!
Used by bad people? Well, you can say that about cash. But if we get rid of cash — as many experts want to — you can kiss any hope for freedom goodbye.

Venezuelans, by turning to keeping “their money in a digital wallet in the form of Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash or any of the others,” are grabbing at something much better than what their malign inflation-happy government provides.

It is a pity that the “free-market” alternative is called “crypto” — meaning secret.

Freedom is the world’s best-kept secret?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing