So, today I saw this statement written down by an Obama supporter.
Over 50,000 manufacturing plants in America have been shut down over the past decade.I don’t care who is at fault. Today, nearly 44 million Americans are living below the poverty line, the largest number on record. The poor and middle classes have suffered. It is time for wealthy corporations to contribute as well.
So, why do we need a basic understanding of economics anyhow? What good does a basic understanding of any economic theory do for us? Hopefully, this essay will answer those questions. Let me start by saying, a complete ignorance of how an economy works is how we got landed with Obama in the first place. Basically, there are two different schools of economic thought competing for our affections in today’s world. There is the Keynesian school, (named after its author Maynard Keynes for those about to become hysterical with the thought that I might be claiming that Barack Obama is from Kenya and not Hawaii.) There is also the Austrian school. The Keynesian school holds that government is the best tool to spur economic growth and development. The major countries in the industrialized world to have followed this model were the old Soviet Union, Greece, and until the early 90’s, communist China. It was also the basis for economic thought for the Soviet satellite nations, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc. The major industrial nations which have followed the Austrian school have been the United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Chile. This sets up a video.
No matter the track record of failure which has been witnessed by the proponents of the Keynesian school over the last century, politicians press onward. The reason why? To put it bluntly, it allows them to make irresponsible promises to a willing electorate. Face it, we all would like free stuff. Promise me a bag of goodies from the public largess, and tell me someone else would be able to pay for it. Don’t concern me with trite little details of who that someone will ultimately be, just tell me it will be a big benevolent government with no identifiable face. The problem of course, is that our government does nothing to earn any of its own funds. Every penny a government spends must be confiscated from its citizens. That leaves a set of very limited choices for any group of ruling leaders. One, pitch taxes to currently maximize revenue to pay for the bag of goodies, or two, spend money it does not have and force future generations to pay for today’s party. Why try to guess and argue over the results of this path? We have a wonderful laboratory in existence today, which will show us quite clearly what the results of this economic philosophy will be. How has this all worked out for Greece? About a year ago, Greece received a bail out to stem the tide of their last round of riots from the EU. Here we are a year later, and they have their collective, (pun intended,) hands out again. In 1981, Greece elected a Socialist leader who promised hope and change. How has it worked out for them?
On the converse side, every where capitalism has been tried, and freedom been tried, it has succeeded with unparalleled success. The wealth created by the free nations of the world is unprecedented. Our poorest citizens are much better off than the poor of any other nation. People are constantly whining about the destruction of the middle class, but at the same time, a middle class only exists in those nations which employ a free market system. Our middle class in America enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world today. Putting aside for the moment that the argument posited above depends entirely on invoking feelings of jealousy in all of us, let’s follow it to its natural conclusion. Let’s pretend that we all just got together and passed a, “Too much profit tax,” on every corporation in America. When ever any company exceeded the predetermined amount of allowable profit, they would be forced to pay whatever penalty the mob deemed necessary. What do you believe the results would be? If I were a CEO of any company, I would lead my team to produce what ever the limit was, and then stop. So, if I sold gasoline for example, we would sell how ever much gas it took to reach our limit, and not another drop beyond. I might have to send all of my employees home for the last half of the year, but too bad for them, the government set the limits. People who purchased my product might need to continue driving to work and to soccer games for their children, but hard cheese for them, they determined through the law of the land the fact that I was not permitted to produce beyond my limitations. The other alternative of course would be to pass along the increased costs of taxation directly to the consumer. The very people we profess to be helping would be screwed by our efforts.
BP did not create our society to be dependent on oil. We all found a use for the oil BP produced, and then we bought a lot of it. Now that it has become so useful, our demagogic leaders are telling us that use of oil is our basic right and that BP is suddenly evil for selling it to us. Question: What will we do when we put every oil producing company out of business?
By the way, in addressing the above statement in purely political terms, Boeing tried, and was shot down in extreme regulatory fashion, to create thousands of manufacturing jobs in South Carolina very recently. It seems that competitive pressures and a shifting of their market place made it a profitable decision to build a new airplane, one which they currently are not manufacturing. So why is it that the same folks who are so busy looking out for us little guys are not allowing Boeing to create these thousands of high paying jobs which will also create jobs for other industries which will be needed to service Boeing and her employees? Any way, I will leave you with Milton Friedman and the miracle of the pencil. This is the best explanation of how a robust economy works. A subject on which the author of the above statement really needs an education.