Archive for the ‘Econ. 101’ category

Hurricane Irma: Credentialed Ignorance vs. Uncredentialed Intelligence.

October 5, 2017

 

The credentialed ignorance of NY Federal Reserve president William Dudley is revealed by Evelyn’s uncredentialed intelligence. Evelyn quotes Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, and Thomas Sowell to make her economic argument that the destruction by hurricane Irma is ‘the broken window fallacy’ on a much larger scale.  Fed president William Dudley seems to think the destruction by hurricane Irma will improve the economy. I bet William Dudley has never read anything written by Hazlitt, Bastiat or Sowell.

INTELLIGENCE.

Here is Evelyn’s short video about the Broken Window Fallacy.

IGNORANCE.

Now watch the credentialed ignorance exhibited by NY Federal Reserve President William Dudley in this CNBC interview (click here).

If we believe the economic ignorance of William Dudley we would think that Puerto Rico’s $73 billion debt problem (read here) will magically go away because the island was almost destroyed by hurricane Maria. I bet the people of Puerto Rico don’t realize how lucky they were that Maria hit them directly.

CONCLUSION

You don’t need an economics degree to understand economics. But I think you need an economics degree in order to become ignorant about economics.

 

By the way. Evelyn uses one of my favorite Thomas Sowell quotes: “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

 

Related ArticleHurricane Sandy And The Broken Window Fallacy, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Broken Window, at mises.org.

Related ArticleA Keynesians Dream; Cruise Missile Strikes In Syria. at austrianaddict.com.

Advertisements

Some Econ Homework

June 20, 2017

Jean-Baptiste Say And The “Law Of Markets“, by Richard Ebeling, at fff.org. Say’s ‘Law Of Markets’ states: “A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value.”…..As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.”

You can’t consume what has not been produced. Production creates the ability to consume. The more you produce the more you can consume.

Say: “It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales….Money performs no more than the role of a conduit in this double exchange. When the exchanges have been completed, it will be fount that one has paid for products with products….Should a tradesman say, ‘I don not want other commodities for my woolens, I want money,’ there could be little difficulty in convincing him, that his customers cannot pay him money, without having first procured it by the sale of some other  commodities of their own….”

Counterfeiting money creates an exchange of an actual produced good for dollars that are not backed by corresponding production. This is theft. Even if the counterfeiting is done ‘legally’ by The Federal Reserve, it is still an exchange of something for nothing (aka theft).

There are always imbalances with supply and demand in the market, but they are usually corrected rather quickly. Monetary intervention by the Fed creates imbalances that last much longer and are only corrected by stopping the monetary intervention or an eventual bursting of the bubble.

Federal Reserve monetary manipulation has been going on for about a decade. Does anyone know what is real and what is fake in our economy right now? All we can say is there are major imbalances in our economy that will eventually be liquidated, and it won’t be pretty.

“Priming The Pump” Won’t Create Real Wealth, by Frank Shostak, at mises.org. When a recession happens labor and capital become idle. ‘Experts’ think the way out of the recession is to increase demand for goods and services so these idle labor and capital will become employed once again. Ignoring how the over-supply of labor and capital happened in the first place can lead to the same Government and Fed policy solutions which created the problem in the first place. Idle resources are not the problem. Idle resources are the symptom of the problem. The problem is the initial intervention into the market using the policies of below market interest rates and injecting electronically printing counterfeit money into the economy.

Excerpt from the article: “Commentators are correct in believing that what prevents the expansion of the production and the utilization of idle resources is the lack of credit. There is, however, the need to emphasize that the credit that is lacking is the productive credit – the one that is fully backed by real wealth (real savings). The fact that this type of credit is scarce is the outcome of previous episodes of expansionary monetary mischief by the central bank, which resulted in the diversion of wealth from wealth producers to non – wealth producers.”

“What most commentators advocate is the expansion of credit out of “thin air,” via central bank…. direct monetary injections or via intervention in the money markets to maintain a lower target interest rate……This expansion of unbacked credit not only cannot revitalize the economy but, on the contrary, will set in motion a further weakening of the process of wealth generation.

Fed Officials Can’t See What’s Right In Front Of Them, Jonathan Newman, at mises.org. Fed officials can’t see the forest for the trees.

Here is an excerpt from the article:”Minnesota District Bank president, Neel Kashkari recently wrote…..the Fed faces a dilemma regarding asset bubbles and whether of not they should be met with raising interest. He summarizes in five points.”

-“It is really hard to spot bubbles with any confidence before they burst.”

-“The fed has limited policy tools to stop a bubble from growing, even if we thought we spotted one.”

-“The costs of making policy mistakes can be very high, so we must proceed with caution.”

-“What we can and must do is ensure that the financial system is strong enough to withstand the inevitable bursting of a bubble.”

-“Monetary policy should be used only as a last resort to address asset prices, because the costs of the economy of such policy response are potentially so large.”

“Then he admits that it is possible artificially low-interest rates increase the probability of asset bubbles forming: “Low rates…could make bubbles more likely to form in the first place.” He laments that there is no economic theory to back this up….”

It is hard to believe that with his myriad of  ‘credentialed ignorance’ he has never heard of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Excerpt from the article:

“For Mises and Hayek, the policy mistake involves any creation of credit out of thin air…….If any central bank increases the money supply through the financial system, it means that borrowers have the privilege of being the first to bid up prices as the new money ripples through the economy.”

“It means that nominal incomes, employment, consumption, the prices of capital goods, and other asset prices will increase. It means that capital will be directed into new, longer, and riskier lines of production, beyond what would have happened at the prevailing levels of real saving. These lines of production will turn out to be unprofitable as the increasing scarcity of capital becomes apparent and the costs of production become prohibitively high. Incomes, employment, consumption, and stock prices plummet as laborers and capital owners seek productive and profitable employment. The bust is made up of all of the necessary corrections for the errors made during the boom. Additional artificial credit will only delay this process and make it more painful when the day comes.

Mr. Kashkari, you said: ” Monetary policy should be used only as a last resort to address asset prices, because the cost to the economy of such policy responses are potentially so large.” Mr. Kashkari, do you know that the Fed monetary policies “of last resort” have been in effect since before 2000? These policies caused the tech and housing bubbles. What have been the costs to the economy after 20 years of these policies? They are incalculable. The only way to stop this waste is to allow interest rates to be set by the market and stop the money printing. This will bring about a recession which will correct all the dislocations of resources, capital and labor that were brought about by these policies. All thought the losses will be high, they won’t come close to the losses that will be incur the longer these monetary policies are allowed to continue.

Related ArticleInterest Rates Set By The Market vs. Interest Rates Set By The Fed, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleReal Savings = True Credit. Printed Savings = False Credit, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThomas Woods Explains The Austrian Business Cycle, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Fed has Proved The Lefts “Trickle down Straw Man” Doesn’t Work. at austrianaddict.com.

Is There A Wage Gap Between Men And Women?

April 4, 2017

The ‘gender pay gap’ is a myth which has been spread for years. I have been reading about this ‘fake cause’ since I can remember. In 1984 Thomas Sowell covered this topic in chapter 5 of his book “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality”.

Here is a Prager University video by Christina Hoff Sommers explaining the statistical fudging that takes place when the gender pay cause becomes bigger than the truth.

THOMAS SOWELL  addresses this topic in my article: “The ‘Equal Pay Day’ Canard” .

In this article titled: Equal Pay Day Is An Annual Event That Spreads Statistical Misinformation About The Gender Pay Gap, by Mark J. Perry, at carpediemblog, Mark J. Perry says choices made about hours worked, type of work, and marriage and motherhood are three of the deciding factors on how much a person is paid. Women and men make different choices in these three areas. When you compare men and women who make the same decisions the wage gap is negligible.

Mark J. Perry’s article titled: “Equal Pay Day’ This Year Is April 4th – The Next ‘Equal Occupational Fatality Day’ Will Be On January 21st 2029, shows how men work in riskier jobs than women. Thirteen men die while working on the job for every one women who dies on the job. Riskier jobs pay more. Choices have consequences.

Ignorance Perpetuates This Myth.

Supposedly smart people are ignorant when it comes to the gender pay gap. Here are two articles showing this ignorance.

The Chief Operating Officer Of Facebook Appears Clueless When It Comes To The Wage Gap, at economicjournal.com.

Ivanka Wage Gap Ignorance, at economicpolicyjournal.com.

We don’t have to be ignorant about issues like this. All we have to do is look beyond the rhetoric of the people pushing the cause.

Healthcare: Market Solutions vs. Bureaucratic Decrees

March 28, 2017

Modern thin line design concept for HEALTHCARE website banner. Vector illustration concept for healthcare diagnosis and treatment.

Our current battle over healthcare is being debated from a false premise. Most people have bought into the lie that healthcare is or should be a right. It isn’t a right as understood by most people. The right to keep and bare arms doesn’t mean someone else is obligated to supply a gun. The right to free speech  doesn’t mean someone else is obligated to supply a microphone, a stage and an audience. But for some reason we think a right to healthcare means someone is obligated to provide it.

The truth is healthcare is an economic good or service produced by individuals. These individuals own what they produce. It is their property. No one has a right to what someone else produces.

How can you gain possession of what someone else owns? 1) You can produce something they want and exchange it for what they have produced. 2) They may give it to you as a gift. 3) You can steal it. 4) You can have someone steal another persons production, exchange it for what you want, and have them give it to you indirectly. 5) You can have someone else steal it and give it to you directly.

Government intervention into the healthcare market, up to and including Obamacare, has been an incremental march away from the first two and toward the last two. Everyone knows that direct theft of another person’s property is unethical and immoral because it is illegal. But when we are one or two steps removed from the direct theft, for some reason we think it’s ethical and moral because government says it’s legal.

hand writing economic demand - supply graph on chalkboard

ECONOMIC REALITY OF HEALTHCARE

Healthcare is an economic good ruled by the laws of economics. Scarcity, subjective value, supply and demand are a few laws we need to look at in order to understand why government central planning isn’t the right process to ration the scarce good we call healthcare.

SCARCITY: Healthcare has to be produced. It is a scarce good. It isn’t like the air we breathe. Air doesn’t have to be produced by anyone. The abundant supply of air exists naturally. You might say the air I put in my tires Isn’t free. The air you put in your tires is first compressed and then forced into your tires. Compressed air has to be produced, therefore it is an economic good and not free like the air you breathe.

SUBJECTIVE VALUE: Everyone values healthcare differently. There is no objective value that can be placed on healthcare. The value for healthcare is subjective depending on each individual’s needs and wants. Both the demand for and the supply of healthcare is valued subjectively.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND: Since healthcare is scarce and valued subjectively, the law of supply and demand comes into play coordinating its production and consumption. The price reflects subjective valuations by individuals related to supply and demand. The subjective valuations at the existing price drives supply and demand to a new coordinating price.

The law of supply and demand states that more is demanded at a lower price than a higher price and more is supplied at higher price than a lower price. Price changes are constantly re-coordinating supply and demand according to the subjective valuations of individuals.

The supply of healthcare is limited by the scarcity of the resources, labor, capital and time needed to produce it. It is also limited by the demand for healthcare. If the demand for healthcare increases against a fixed supply, the price will go up in order to ration the scarce resource. As the price rises more resources, labor, capital, and time will be attracted to producing healthcare. As the supply increases to meet the higher demand a point will be reached where the price will stabilize and then decrease as supply outpaces demand.

The changing price sends information to consumers and producers about the scarcity of healthcare. These price changes are figured into the subjective valuations of how much each consumer will demand and how much each producer will supply.

Free market prices are the most efficient way to ration healthcare in a world of scarcity and subjective value.

government regulations, magnifier, pencil

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION INTO HEALTHCARE

Government mandated healthcare subsidies, taxes and regulations distort the prices that would normally exist in a free market. Consumers demands and producers supplies are going to change according to these distorted prices. A mismatch of the supply of and demand for these scarce resources is brought about by government intervention.

What did you think was going to happen when more consumers were brought into the market by the Obamacare individual mandate? Subsidies also increase demand. Prices were guaranteed to rise as demand was artificially increased.

What happens when prices for healthcare services paid by Medicare and Medicaid are fixed below what they would be in a free market? The supply of health care would decrease at these lower prices.

Obamacare created more demand and at the same time created the incentive to supply less. What happens to the price when more is demanded and less is supplied? Even though our politicians told us costs would go down under The Affordable Care Act, anyone who understood basic economics could have predicted which way the price would go. And that isn’t even including paying for the government bureaucracy needed to implement the ACA.

NOW WHAT?

The failure of the Republican repeal and replace bill is a good thing. The bill was just an exchange of a set of not quite as bad new government regulations for the existing bad government regulations. Their is only one way to reduce the cost of healthcare. Get rid of government subsidies, taxes and regulations. Unfortunately all Democrats and a majority of Republicans don’t understand basic economics.

Quoting Ludwig von Mises – “Economic history is a long record of Government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.

Republicans are also scared of political fall out when they get rid of healthcare entitlements. The Democrats and their accomplices in the main stream media will trot out all the sob stories of people whose ‘access’ to healthcare was taken away. Of course the MSM didn’t tell the stories of all the people who had their healthcare costs sky rocket under the ACA. These rising premiums paid for the increased costs and subsidies caused by government intervention.

Millions of families got crushed by the higher cost of healthcare. These were small businessmen and people who worked for small businesses in the more rural counties in America. These are the same people who were barely able to stay afloat when the economy crashed in 08. They cut their discretionary spending to the bone. Many had to use their savings and retirement accounts to make it through the recession.

When the Affordable Care Act was implemented after 2013 there was no spending left to cut to pay for the higher cost of healthcare. Wives had to go back to work just for the insurance. Men took second jobs for the same reason. These are the people in the swing states of Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, and the Democrat States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump. He was their only hope. They literally couldn’t afford to vote for Hilary.

Fortunately market alternatives to Obamacare are starting to appear around the country.

Read Here- Direct Primary Care, A No-Insurance Model.

Read Here – Florida West Virginia Lawmakers Take Interest In Insurance Free Approach.

Read Here – Atlas MD, Wichita’s Premiere Cash-Only Clinic.

As the price of Obamacare goes higher the demand for Obamacare will decrease. This higher price will also bring about lower cost market alternatives to the Government run system. These alternatives will be outside of the system. We can call these free market alternatives as long as Government doesn’t try to shut them down with regulations. If they do try to shut them down they will then become black market alternatives (the new free market).

Fracking is an example of a market alternative to the OPEC cartel and our Governments regulations on drilling off shore and on public land. When the price of oil rose to above $110 dollars a barrel it became affordable for hydraulic fracturing to take off on private land. Now that it is profitable to frack at $45 a barrel the OPEC cartel has lost its monopoly power. The high price of $110 was what eventually brought the price of oil down. Healthcare will be no different. The market will find an alternative as the price goes higher.

Read Here – Trumpcare Defeat Could Be A Small But Important Victory For Healthcare Freedom.

Read Here – Ryancare Is Failing -What Should Happen Next?

Read Here – Forget Obamacare, Ryancare, And Any Future Reformcare – The Healthcare System Is Completely Broken.

Economic reality will end Obamacare. Let’s hope the Government doesn’t end the market alternatives that have started to take root.

 

Economic Ignorance Has Caused Our Political Chaos.

March 8, 2017

Microeconomics or Micro Economics as a Concept

What do Jeffery Sachs (economics professor at Columbia), Bill Gates, the Pope, Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have in common?….. Economic ignorance!

Why are  pronouncements by people with authority rarely challenged?….. Economic ignorance!

I found some recent articles on economicpolicyjournl.com which have a similar theme: People with authority demonstrating their ignorance about basic economic principles.

Here are the articles.

Harvard Educated Economist Clueless About The Fundamentals Of Economics.

I Never Realized The Economic Ignoramus Bill Gates Is….Until Now.

The Pope’s Problem With Basic Economics.

Trump In Melbourne Spilling His Economic Plans And How Non-Free Market Are They.

House Republican Border Adjustment Tax Plan Gains Support In White House: Prepare For Higher Prices And Less Product.

Jeffery Sachs, Bill Gates and the Pope don’t have the power of Government behind anything they say. Their authority exists in the minds of the people who believe they have authority. They can’t force their economic ignorance on us

The President and Congress have the power of Government behind their policies. Politicians and bureaucrats can force their economic ignorance on us.

OUR ECONOMIC IGNORANCE

The increasing political chaos existing in the U.S is rooted in the economic ignorance of a vast majority of people. Both the masses, and people with “authority”, bear responsibility for our present political and economic situation.

People with “authority” being economically ignorant creates a problem because we the masses accept what they say as truth. This leads to the passage of Governmental policies which can’t produce the outcomes predicted by the people with authority.

We have the power to be a check on these people with authority. But we reinforce their authority on the one hand, and increase the economic ignorance of the masses on the other, when we don’t challenge the economic validity of what they say.

People with authority always want more power. Their power can’t be increased unless we allow it. Authority not backed by the force of Government isn’t real authority. We voluntarily give people their position of authority.

With politicians and bureaucrats it’s different. Their authority is backed by the force of Government. Our first non-violent voluntary recourse to their power is to vote the economically ignorant out of office, or not to vote them into office in the first place. Our second is putting political pressure on politicians. But this only works if a overwhelming majority of people put political pressure on them.

The ability of politicians and bureaucrats to grow their power, rests on the economic ignorance of the electorate. If the economic consequences of the policies passed by these politicians were known by the voters, they wouldn’t have been passed. Understanding basic economic principles allows us to look over the horizon and see the consequences of these policies.

EXAMPLES OF FAILED POLICIES

The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare sounds great. But the laws of economics will not allow the ACA to lower the cost of healthcare. The costs can be shifted, but not lowered by government decree. The result of passing the ACA is chaos in the healthcare market, or what is left of a healthcare market.

Increasing the minimum wage for low skilled workers sounds great. But the laws of economics won’t allow increasing the minimum wage, above what that labor produces. The result of passing this law is fewer low skilled workers will be employed.

FORSEEABLE CONSEQUENCES

If, we the people, understood some basic principles of economics we wouldn’t allow these interventionist ideas to be planted, let alone take root.

Some of these basic principles are: 1) Scarcity, 2) Subjective Value, 3) Supply and Demand 4) Production Precedes Consumption.

Lets look at the Affordable Care Act and mandated minimum wage increases through the binoculars of scarcity, and supply and demand.

Scarcity is the first rule of economics. Scarcity simply means, “what everybody wants adds up to more than there is”. Put differently. Their are limited means available to satisfy the unlimited ends we seek. These limited means have to be allocated toward producing the ends we seek. There are two ways to allocate these means. One way is voluntary cooperation, through prices in a free market. The other way is force, through the edicts of politicians and bureaucrats using government power.

Supply and Demand is easy to understand. Put simply; More is demanded and less is supplied at a low price, and more is supplied and less is demanded at a high price. Prices reflect and drive supply and demand. If their is a sudden drop in the supply of a product, the price rises. This increase in price rations the existing supply, and sends a signal that more needs to be produced. On the flip side of the coin, if their is a sudden increase in the supply of a product, the price will go down. This decrease in price sells off the existing glut, and sends a signal less needs to be produced.

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND MINIMUM WAGE LAWS

The Affordable Care Act forced “30 million” uninsured people to enter the healthcare market. This meant the demand for healthcare was going to increased. Even though the supply of healthcare couldn’t be increased as quickly. (Example) It takes years for people to become doctors and nurses. Increasing the supply takes more time than the almost instant increase in demand brought about by the stroke of pen. If we apply the economic principles of scarcity, and supply and demand to the Affordable Care Act, what was going to happen to the price of healthcare? And this is not even calculating the cost of the regulations and new bureaucracy created by the 2500 page bill.

Raising the minimum wage increases the price of labor. According to the law of supply and demand, less is demanded at the high price. Voting for laws which increase the wages of people who we think are not being paid enough doesn’t help these people. Fewer people will be employed at the higher price. Many times these low skilled workers jobs will disappear all together because they can be replaced by automation. The price of labor was artificially increased to the point where it was economical to automate (read here). If we apply the law of supply and demand to the rhetoric of increasing the minimum wage, people wouldn’t have been fooled into thinking they were helping the people the law was actually hurting..

OUR CHOICES

Economic principles are always in play. Government edicts can’t negate economic reality. The political chaos we have today is the result of ignoring the reality of basic economics. We can’t wish these realities away because we don’t like the fact they limit what we demand.

I’m going to quote a person with authority at this point. So don’t take this quote as authoritative. Figure it out yourself.

F. A. Hayek a Nobel Prize winning economist, (how is that for status), said: “Planning, or central direction of economic activity, presupposes the existence of common ideals and common values; and the degree to which planning can be carried is limited to the extent to which agreement on such a common scale of values can be obtained or enforced.

Let’s get educated in basic economics. Life is easier to understand when you understand how the world works. Here is another quote.

F. A. Hayek: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little the really know, about what he imagines he can design.”

We have two choices. Scarce resources can be rationed through prices voluntarily in the free market. Or Scarce resources can be rationed forcibly by politicians and bureaucrats through the power of Government. Which direction are we moving?

CONCLUSION

Political insiders of both parties have shaped the battle field into a choice between the R’s and the D’s. In reality the real battle is between the insiders in both parties who want to grow the power of Government, and people who stand for free markets and want to cut the power of government. Neither group is a majority. The majority of people are the economically ignorant. These people have been fooled into fighting the battle through the R and D paradigm.

Our job is to educate the economically ignorant. When this majority understands basic economic principles, they will they stop fighting on the fake R and D battlefield and start fighting on the real battlefield: central planning vs. voluntary cooperation.

 

Related ArticleMinimum Wage Laws Create Unemployment, at austrianaddict.com

Related ArticleIncome Inequality Part II: Increase The Minimum Wage, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Reality Of Obamacare, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Economics of Healthcare vs. The Right To Healthcare, at austrianaddict.com.

 

Prosperity Comes From Free Markets Not Government Planning

January 26, 2017

Thomas Sowell said: “The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is not enough to satisfy what everyone desires. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics“. When individuals are free to decide what to produce, consume, exchange and save according to their subjective valuations, inside this world of scarcity, the result is a higher standard of living with the least amount of waste and a high degree of individual want satisfaction. Government economic planning creates a lower standard of living with a high amount of waste and a low degree of individual want satisfaction.

Here is a video from Prager University (click here) giving some examples of why free markets are better than Government planning.

 

TRUMP’S MARKET INTERVENTIONS

We should be pushing back when Trump talks about trade barriers, to save or bring back ‘American’ jobs, and infrastructure spending. These are government interventions into the free market and we know what the results will be: 1) an over all lower standard of living, 2) a waste of resources, labor, time and capital, 3) less want satisfaction.

Tariffs save some jobs at the cost of higher prices for consumers. The money used by consumers to pay the higher prices can’t be used in other areas of commerce. This ultimately means more net jobs are lost than saved by tariffs. Unfortunately the jobs saved are seen and the jobs lost are unseen as Bastiat wrote about in the 1800′s.

Every dollar “invested” by Government is first taken from the private sector. In other words the individuals subjective value on how to he will use what he has produced, is replaced by the subjective valuations of bureaucrats on how they will use what they didn’t produce. What happened to all the infrastructure spending in Obama’s $900 billion ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ of 2009? Remember Obama saying, “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.”

 

Related ArticleLOVE  “GOV”, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticlePrivate Property vs. Collective Ownership: One Deals With Scarcity Better Than The Other, at austrianaddict.com.

Related Article – ‘CAR WARS’ Return Of The Jitneys, at austrianaddict.com.

Prager University: Democratic Socialism Is Still Socialism

December 14, 2016

Capitalism or Socialism - Traffic sign with two options - socialist centralized economic planning or capitalist liberated free market

Socialism is defined as Government owning the means of production. In a Capitalist economic system, the means of production are owned by individuals. Many systems today try to have a delicate balance between these two systems. They are similar to the economic Fascism that existed under Mussolini in Italy where the means of production are still owned by individuals, but Government politicians and bureaucrats make rules and regulations on how these means are to be used, as well as taxing away a high percentage of profits.

If a country is in the middle between Socialism and Capitalism the important question is; which direction is it headed? Is a country moving toward more economic freedom or toward more government central planning. The U.S. has been traveling, at varying speeds, down the road toward more central planning since the 60’s, with the accelerator pressed to the floor in the last 8 years.

This past election was a response to what has happened in the last 8 years. Lets hope Trump and Congress want to turn around and head in the direction of more economic freedom. But I wouldn’t count on it. I just hope they take their foot off the accelerator.

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS STILL SOCIALISM

Steven Crowder looks for the differences between Democratic Socialism and Socialism in this video from Prager University. Even though a majority of people vote for (sanction) this system, it doesn’t change the reality that it doesn’t work.

In 1848 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote this about Democracy and Socialism:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, Socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man, Socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word: Equality. But notice the difference. While Democracy seeks equality in liberty, Socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

 

Here are some statements about Socialism.

Paul Craig Roberts: “We should all be thankful to the Soviets, because they have proved conclusively that Socialism doesn’t work. No one can say they didn’t have enough power or enough bureaucracy or enough planners or they didn’t go far enough.”

F. A. Hayek:There can be no doubt that the promise of greater freedom as become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the road to freedom was in fact the high road to servitude.

Ludwig von Mises: “Men must choose between the market economy and socialism……Some agency must determine what should be produced. If it is not the consumer by means of demand and supply on the market. It must be the government by compulsion.”

F. A. Hayek: “Planning, or central direction of economic activity, presupposes the existence of common ideals and common values; and the degree to which planning can be carried is limited to the extent of which agreement on such a common scale of values can be obtained or enforced.”

 

Related ArticleWhy Socialism Won’t Work, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleMilton Friedman – “Socialism is Force”, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleDrifting Toward Fascism, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleDoes Socialism Make People Selfish? at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleSocialism Sounds Great, at austrianaddict.com.