September 22nd, 2009

End the Fed, End the Empire


photo credit: fpsurgeon

For decades, politicians on both sides of the aisle have lampooned each others’ policies and programs while guarding their own as irreproachable. Democrats have steadily promoted the welfare state, while Republicans are most noted for their advancing of the warfare state. The truth is that each side loves both, but when a member of the opposing party is leading the cause, they often make a big fuss to placate their constituency. Democrats are anti-war when a Republican is commander-in-chief, but grow silent when one of their own takes over and expands the war; Republicans balk at the socialist agenda of a Democratic president, but are willingly complicit when their side is in charge.

The political reality of our country is that both parties support and expand the hybrid welfare/warfare state that has come to symbolize America. While once a nation of hard-working, independent providers, we have morphed into a cesspool of dole-dependent consumers. And while we as a people once understood and abided by the Just War Theory, we are now a nation of warhawks, pseudo patriots, and nation builders.

What happened to America?

The short answer is that America has transformed itself into an empire. Policing the world abroad and giving away “freebies” at home, it has injected itself into nearly every transaction in the lives of its citizens. Whether funding the troops abroad or the entitlement programs at home, the federal government has ballooned into a malevolent monstrosity unrivaled throughout history.

But this rapid growth cannot be ascribed to nothing; there is a reason why the past century has witnessed such a radical transformation in public policy and social mores. The government-expanding policies of both parties require money, and that money has to come from somewhere. In an honest government, citizens would consent to these programs in exchange for the direct taxes that they would incur. The government, in this case, would not be able to grow overly burdensome without first increasing the tax burden of each citizen. Big programs would likely not last long if Americans were having to openly pay for each program in a transparent and forthright manner.

This restraint, however, has historically been a severe thorn in the politician’s side. Eager to enact their pet projects but reluctant to turn their constituency against them, leaders have long looked for ways to circumvent this fair process. Whether shaving coins or diluting their metallic makeup, tyrants throughout history have experimented with ways to indirectly tax its citizens through a confiscation of their wealth.

The era of fiat currency rendered these counterfeiting techniques archaic and obsolete.

In 1913, America was deviously encumbered with a central banking system called the Federal Reserve. This institution is able to literally create money out of thin air. Since its inception and due to its power, it has primarily served to facilitate the desire of every big government advocate elected or appointed to office. If big government is the drug, then the Fed is the enabler; without its tempting supply of dollars, the congressional crooks in Washington would not be able to feed their addiction.

For all the fuss that is made over comparatively small acts of corruption, few realize that these and all other related acts of lawlessness would be non-existent were it not for the inflationary abilities of the Federal Reserve. Without the Fed, Congress could not pass health care, entitlement programs, economic stimuli, or housing programs. Likewise, they would not have the ability to support hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide, repair bridges we’ve just blown up, and grant no-bid contracts to arms manufacturers and mercenary contracting firms. In short, by turning off the money spigot, the flood of corruption ends.

The challenge to opposing corruption is that it works both ways, crossing partisan lines. Those who oppose social welfare programs cannot do so without giving up their support of our military adventures throughout the world. The opposite holds true as well: the anti-war crowd cannot realize their objective without also giving up their domestic spending sprees. Either faction requires a limitless supply of money to achieve its goals, and if that bottomless pit is allowed to exist, it is likewise accessible to and taken advantage of by the other party.

If we are to end the rampant corruption that has infested nearly every interaction with the federal government, we must go after the source. The Federal Reserve cannot be permitted to exist, for if it does, its easy money will saturate every transaction and attract all sorts of amoral bottom-feeders who thrive on the theft of others’ money. It is the equivalent of flooding the black market with cheap, addictive drugs and then fighting a “war on drugs” by going after one dealer at a time. Our time and resources would be better spent investigating and fighting the source of the problem, rather than slowly and individually targeting each by-product.

America has changed course because she has been seduced by free money. In reality, this money is not free, but is a hidden, indirect tax that has resulted in the destruction of 97% of the dollar’s purchasing power since the Fed took it over in 1913. In effect, Congress has been buying our support with our own money—stealing a dollar out of our left pocket and then telling us we should be pleased when it places a nickel in our right pocket. This seduction is only further solidified by widespread ignorance of this pernicious process.

If we are serious about purging America of corruption, then we must stop hacking at the branches and start striking the root. Any serious discussion of principled and effective activism requires a strategy for dismantling the nefarious enterprise that is the Federal Reserve.

End the Fed, and you then end the empire.

33 Responses to “End the Fed, End the Empire”

  1. David
    September 22, 2009 at 9:35 am #

    Republicans balk at the socialist agenda of a Democratic president, but are willingly complicit when their side is in charge.

    Willingly complicit? It’s a good phrase, but it understates the case I think – I would have said “anxiously engaged”

  2. loquaciousmomma
    September 22, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    Amen Connor!

  3. Jarvie
    September 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    I applaud you!
    This is sooo well written and so right on.

    Wether someone is alright with the “Empire” or not… I think it’s important they understand what’s going on.
    No more acting in the shadows and hope the people don’t stand up for themselves.

    I think it’s important people make decisions knowing the outcome.
    I think when they want something they should understand the price connected to what they want.
    And that it’s alright to have to sacrifice a little bit to get something… but no more of the perception of something for nothing…. when in the end it doesn’t work that way. We’ve been paying for all these things all along. But it doesn’t feel like it and that’s why we seem to be good with it

  4. sloanie
    September 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    “We’ve been paying for all these things all along. But it doesn’t feel like it and that’s why we seem to be good with it.”

    Well isn’t part of it that we go into DEBT to do these things? It’s that “maka-feke”, temptation of instant gratification without having to take the time and work to sacrifice and without any thought of the long term consequences.

    It is a vice that destroys the lives of individuals and families, and will likewise destroy the nation if we do not reverse the trend.

    Awesome article. Down with the Empire!

  5. Doug Bayless
    September 22, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    Connor,

    Right on! (As always, thanks for your thoughtful research and time in gettin’ the word out, heh. :) )

    And to any who would defend the idea of ‘American Empire’ (as essential to ‘Pax Americana’ or whatever) — and there are lotsandlotsandlots of ’em who lobby our legislators and influence the nations’ editorial boards — I would mention President Hinckley’s observation in his conference address “War and Peace“:

    “We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure.

  6. Kelly W.
    September 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    Connor, you state:

    “Big programs would likely not last long if Americans were having to openly pay for each program in a transparent and forthright manner.”

    This is so true – if Americans knew what they were paying to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, the occupations of these countries would end tonight.

  7. Marc
    September 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    Right on Connor, another brilliant piece. You state what I am thinking but cannot articlulate as well as you do.

    I have been pounding this reality into people and most just do not believe that the FED is at the root of our problems. I regularly teach LDS friends that this group are the Gadianton robbers of our day. Most cannot see the parallel, being stuck in the islamic jihad/gadianton parallel. Sigh…..

  8. Mom
    September 22, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    I just think the picture is WAY COOL. Ha! LOVE your graphics!

  9. Jed
    September 22, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    The government bloat probably comes more from a lack of a balanced budget than the fed. The government borrows money via treasury notes from investors on an open market to pay for items in the budget it can’t support via tax dollars. Our 11.4 trillion dollar deficit comes from this. You might find it alarming that the country of China owns nearly a quarter of US debt (800 billion dollars). I think it is more distasteful than alarming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    My view of the fed is that it controls the money supply in response to inflation and market demands (primarily by changing interest rates), but does not directly supply funds for budget items.

    Plus the fed regulates banking institutions, which if somebody didn’t do they would certainly run amok.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

    I’d keep the fed and require a balanced budget–which as you can see in California’s case is extremely painful and requires you to make really hard decisions–something I agree with the author that politicians are loathe to do.

  10. Matt
    September 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Yes, I agree. However, wouldn’t auditing and then ending the Fed need to be accompanied by:

    United States withdrawal from the United Nations (a communist-socialist organization with its own constitution based on that of the Soviet Union’s constitution.) and

    – Securing US boarders because I doubt the US would be allowed to withdraw peacefully from the UN.

    Ending the Fed will not be the end of the “Empire”. The Empire is more than the US. We have only been used as a part of an international effort to establish world government at the expense Americans and American freedom. We are battling an ideology of an international socialist-dictatorship. Fabian Socialism (evolutionary rather than revolutionary in its approach) is alive and well and we need to expose it and all of the errors of its false principles and doctrines. A Central bank is a big part, but only one of the 13 points of Fabian Socialism.

    Ending the Fed would be a major blow, but it would not be a fatal blow. The root of this corrupt tree bearing evil fruit is Satan, and his whore of the earth that sits upon the many waters is communism/socialism. The answer is to turn the hearts of the people of this nation to Jesus Christ and to help them understand correct principles of the Gospel and Freedom. This attacks the root.

  11. Marc
    September 22, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    Jed, the current crisis has come about by the FED hugely increasing the money supply. They did this by lowering interest rates that they charge to other banks. The Banks having access to easy money invest in all kinds of risky loans since they need to invest the money somewhere. This is called “malinvestment” and leads to market bubbles. If our money were tied to something tangible like gold they wouldnt be able to do these kinds of pranks. Help me understand if I am incorrect about this.

  12. M
    September 23, 2009 at 6:35 am #

    Hello Marc, I believe the Fed increases the money supply just by merely increasing the money supply. They have three powerful tools to do this (open market operations, reserve ratios and fed funds rate)

    The Fed primarily uses open market operations or the buying and selling of federal government debt (this is how the government is complicit with the evil practice). As a result of changes in the money supply interest rates change. Think of interest rates as the cost/price of money. (normally I would differentiate between prices and costs because they are not the same thing, but in the case of money creation and destruction I don’t believe there is a need to differentiate.)

    When the Fed increases the supply of money the supply curve shifts out and the price/cost of money (interest rates) decreases. Mal-investment is a result of businesses and bank not knowing or understanding the real cost of money or rather what the supply of money is going to be in the future because the Fed basically has the right to change the money supply at whim and is very secretive about its actions.

    All the talk in the media about setting interest rates creates confusion. What the fed does, since it has a complete monopoly on money, is to choose a target price of money (interest rate) and then change the money supply (shift the supply curve) to achieve the target.

    To think about this another way, imagine you are a prisoner of war and that since the inmates have no money you all end up using your ration of cigarettes as a means of exchange. Then imagine there is a shock to the supply of cigarette (either a dramatic increase or decrease). How would this change in the supply of cigarettes impact your ability to accurately price that extra ration of food that you’ve been buying from your cell mate on a weekly basis? You might over pay and existentially hurt yourself or underpay and existentially hurt your cell mate. You can expand upon this scenario to think about impact to labor and capital.

    The banks took on risk that they normally would not have with the housing bubble not just because of cheap money, but also because of communities groups (think ACORN) and government coercion and lies about the stability of quasi-government organizations (think Freddie and Fannie). Also the relaxation of lending standard and government bank regulators being complicit. Also the pooling of the highly risky loans and the ratings agencies failing to appropriately grade the risk of the pooled loans sold as CDOs etc.

  13. Bob
    September 24, 2009 at 6:59 am #

    It is so reassuring that the likes of you guys will never come to power in the United States.

  14. Connor
    September 24, 2009 at 9:21 am #

    It is so reassuring that the likes of you guys will never come to power in the United States.

    Yeah, ‘cuz those Founding Fathers really screwed things up, didn’t they?

  15. Bob
    September 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    But you guys don’t represent the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers rarely agreed. You may represent one faction of the Founding Fathers, but you do not speak for the whole.

  16. Connor
    September 24, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    But you guys don’t represent the Founding Fathers.

    Nobody here, myself included, is claiming to “represent” them. I do, however, share a common zeal and goal: liberty. And that, today, is something that the vast majority of people are either fearful or ignorant of.

  17. Doug Bayless
    September 24, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Bob, I think Connor’s point is that the ‘Founding Fathers’ are generally considered to be the collective group that authored and championed the Constitution and the founding of our current government. Regardless of their many documented individual disagreements (even on things enshrined into canonical law) there do seem to be a number of things that are pretty easy to argue that they generally supported regarding Empire (one of the unifying agreements for secession from the British), liberty, control by corporations (the East India Trading Company’s interactions with the colonists and power with the Empire were not generally appreciated), etc., etc.

    So, this is a rather pointless trolling exercise unless you actually *make a point* regarding why you support a Federal Reserve with governmental powers but no governmental checks and/or wildly expensive Imperial warfare and/or whatever you could possibly disagree with in this post (and/or comments).

    Please clarify, for goodness sake! lol :)

  18. Marc
    September 24, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Bob, either say something substantial regarding your take on things or go back to living under your bridge (The traditional dwelling place of trolls) So do you have pink or green hair? Trolls are so darn cute!

  19. Bob
    September 24, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    My point is simple: the Fed is not the enemy. There is no enemy, but one: Satan. Aside from him, the rest of us are all in this together. There is no enemy.

    If you remove the Fed, do any of you have any idea what would actually happen? You have no idea. The first thing that would happen is a huge turmoil in the markets. You remove such a big player from the system, the system has to reconfigure to the new settings. You remove the Fed and you give the Chinese the world on a platter. They are quite ready and willing to take charge of the financial world. Currently the Chinese have three of the biggest banks in the world. You remove the Fed and you destroy America’s economy, because the Fed and its actions are so directly attached to America’s economy. You remove the Fed and millions of jobs will be lost. Millions of Americans will go hungry, and eventually die. The Fed may be corrupt (as are most government entities, and also most if not all corporations), but the idea that removing it will somehow solve all our problems is not the kind of thinking that gives me comfort in putting people like you in charge of this country. Thus why I am extremely glad no serious American thinker will take this kind of thinking with anything but a laugh at how infantile an idea it is.

    If you wish to be taken seriously, talk seriously. You cannot remove the Fed. You have to work with the Fed in place. It is now an established system. It is credentialed. It is a player. If you remove it, you will do worse to America than Mao did when he revolutionized China, or Robespierre did to the French. That kind of shock tends to have severe negative effects on the system. Are you ready to be responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans? Are you ready to so weaken America that America’s enemies will fly in with ease to take charge of this great land of ours?

  20. Jarvie
    September 24, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    I really don’t understand why we are obliged to keep a system simply because it’s “in place” perhaps hacking it off and or boarding up the doors would be hard…
    but couldn’t there be a good somewhat smooth transfer of power in our economy from this federal reserve system operating in the dark and deflating the value of MY money … and all this besides the questioning of it’s constitutional authority.

    Do people asking for the end of the Fed want there to simply be a distinct void in it’s place?
    perhaps that’s where Bob and the others are not understanding eachother… perhaps he never realized that they didn’t just mean a coupe d’etat on the economy, or a violent revolution.
    Maybe there’s a transfer method.
    I think them there americans are smart ones that can solve such a dificult situation… and i bet it will help if they try to aim for a legal, constitutional, transparent and moral system. (We can hope and dream I suppose)

  21. Bob
    September 25, 2009 at 7:01 am #

    Jarvie,

    Please explain more this transfer system. What exactly are you thinking will replace the Fed? How will you ensure there is a smooth transition into whatever new system you want in place? See, when challenged, and when shown that your words, if placed, would be catastrophic to Americans, millions would die, you back off and say this will be a smooth transition. But that is not what Connor wishes. He states quite explicitly that he wants to “end the empire.” You cannot “end the empire” without diminishing not just its clout and influence, but also reducing its size, both in its ability to project, and of course its actual physical size. Millions would die.

    More importantly, Connor never states exactly how you transition from the Fed to, well, whatever else. Connor is not exactly clear what would follow the removal of the Fed.

  22. Doug Bayless
    September 25, 2009 at 8:21 am #

    re:”Millions will die.”

    Wait, what?

    I do appreciate your clarifications, Bob. Some of what you discuss shows that you have, indeed, given this some thought.

    But how do you get from “greater transparency and checks” to “millions will die.”?

    It reminds me of those in foreign policy circles attempting to argue that the *only* alternative to ‘aggressive and secretive worldwide military action on behalf of corporations’ is ‘total and complete mindless pacifism and giving up the sovereignty of our nation’ . . . what a waste of an argument! What thinking, moral person would possibly argue for that?

    “End the Empire” does not mean ‘dissipate our military, lay down our weapons, and invite imminent, unchallenged conquer’. “End the Fed” does not likely mean ‘tank the economy, completely devalue our currency, end all economic influence, and impoverish the nation faster than we already are.’

    ‘Ending the Fed’ in my book would be requiring greater transparency and accountability. ‘Ending’ it in its current incarnation.

    ‘Ending the Empire’ would be to focus on defending our own sovereignty and building our own domestic self-reliance without terrorizing and exploiting other nations and trying to control worldwide puppet regimes.

    In both cases, I believe there are many, many, many ways forward that *build* strength and security (fiscal strength and sovereign defense) with less immorality, hypocrisy, and inequality than our current systems. But perhaps I am not lunatic enough to fabricate these straw-man argument systems you are so anxious to tear down . . .

  23. M
    September 25, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    Bob, I would urge to study the issues around central banking more. Learn about how the Fed was conceived and the Federal Reserve Act. Look at the Jacksonian Bank Wars and the words and actions of Nicholas Biddle who purposely contracted the money supply to cause a recession. No group of people should be able to yield that kind of power “independently” and without accountability to the American people despite what Keynesian or socialist economists may say.

    Look at the Federal Reserves alleged purpose and then look at its performance (Listen to Ed Griffin’s Speech, Creature from Jekyll Island)

    There are several plans to transfer off of the debt money system that we have. Example, some say we should follow the monetary policy followed by Lincoln using Greenbacks. Others call for a return to the gold standard. There are no provisions in the Constitution for a central bank and there have been many times in US where we have not had one. I believe in the constitution and the power given to congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof.

    Cursed is he who trusts in the arm of Man or the Board of the Federal Reserve. Investigate seriously our claims and Ron Paul and then judge for yourself.

  24. M
    September 25, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    Bob, lastly look at the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto or the 13 points of Fabian Socialism and then ask yourself which of these have not already been achieved in the United Stated or are in the process of being achieved. If you want to believe in and follow socialism or communism then that is your choice, but before you knowingly make that choice please read what Frédéric Bastiat wrote in his essay The Law.

  25. Bob
    September 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    Doug,

    ‘Ending the Fed’ in my book would be requiring greater transparency and accountability. ‘Ending’ it in its current incarnation.

    But that’s not “ending the Fed.” That’s changing it. That’s allowing the Fed to continue existing. Maybe I am not understanding Connor’s point well, but he seems pretty clear that he wants the Fed done away with. Much like Ron Paul and the others who think like them.

  26. Bob
    September 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    M,

    I’m quite familiar with central banking principles. They precede the founding of the Fed, and are in fact principles begun by the Founding Fathers, and of course England too. To think this is some communist plot is simply ridiculous. Skousen was wrong and always will be wrong.

  27. Connor
    September 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    Bob,

    I welcome the contrarian points, and I’ll respond to them later this weekend when I have the time.

    Until then, might I recommend not using the pseudonym “Bob” to mask your true identity. You are, in fact, a person who has been banned from this blog before. You are to be commended for not using the same style of discourse you once did when commenting under your real name, but perhaps this is intentional to further conceal your identity.

    The gig’s up, man.

  28. Bob
    September 25, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Connor,

    You banned my name previously. I found Bob worked, so I commented. If you removed the ban on my name, I will comment again. :)

  29. Connor
    September 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    You banned my name previously.

    No, I banned you. Red flagging your name to facilitate the ban is the way I implemented it technically, but the ban was not conditional only on your use of your name. So, while I will respond to the various points you’ve listed here, the ban remains and I’d prefer you respect that and move on.

    My point is simple: the Fed is not the enemy. There is no enemy, but one: Satan. Aside from him, the rest of us are all in this together. There is no enemy.

    There is an enemy, Satan. And then there is no enemy. Which is it? (Note that the questions I’ll pose are rhetorical since you won’t have an opportunity to respond.) Satan is not a one-man band. He implements his schemes with help of his mortal minions who, whether they know it or not, are doing his bidding.

    Theft is immoral. Theft is of Satan. Theft is exactly what the Fed does through the printing of new money. My grandparents, living on their savings, are having that savings eroded before their eyes through an indirect inflation tax. This is brought about as a direct result of the Fed printing money out of nowhere (or lowering the interest rate, or extending credit, or using any of the tools it has at its disposal). For all the flowery prose that wraps the Fed’s intentions, their core existence relies upon theft. So yes, they are the enemy (one of many).

    If you remove the Fed, do any of you have any idea what would actually happen? You have no idea.

    We have had two central banks before in this nation’s history. Their termination did not cause the world to implode. Sure, nobody knows the specifics of what would happen if the Fed were to be abolished, but that’s meaningless. What matters is that we do what’s right, not what’s convenient.

    You remove the Fed and you destroy America’s economy, because the Fed and its actions are so directly attached to America’s economy.

    And what do you call the 97% devaluation of the dollar? The Fed has done a good job on its own of destroying America’s economy. That they have deceived so many into thinking that they’re helping and not hurting it is a testament to either the ignorance of the masses or the masterful propaganda they put out. The Fed is a cancerous growth that has slowly been sapping away the energy of the nation. Drastic intervention, though painful, is the only remedy to save the body. It won’t be pretty, but the alternative is a steady spiral downwards at an increasing rate. Look to Zimbabwe for an example of where we’re headed.

    You remove the Fed and millions of jobs will be lost.

    So? I’m not here to support whatever it takes to maintain full employment. (Although that’s one of the Fed’s stated goals, and they’ve done a horrible job at it, of course.) I’m here to do what is right. As Bastiat argued, human labor never goes unemployed. If people are willing to work, there will always be opportunities for them to do so. (They just have to be willing to adapt as necessary.)

    Your point is a red herring, because it distracts from the main point — should the Fed exist at all? It’s like saying that we should never end the war, because it employs tens of thousands of contractors. Well, if the war is wrong, it should be ended, no matter the consequences. No need to employ fearmongering as an intellectual defense of the Fed.

    Speaking of fearmongering, you then say:

    Millions of Americans will go hungry, and eventually die.

    You state this again later, asking me if I’m “ready to be responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans” and twice more in your response to Jarvie. Ahhh, the sky is falling! What a ludicrous comment. It’s so out there, it doesn’t even merit a response. So, moving on…

    Thus why I am extremely glad no serious American thinker will take this kind of thinking with anything but a laugh at how infantile an idea it is.

    Ah, right. So, 75% of people favor auditing the Fed to open up its books, 70% don’t think the Fed is doing a good job, and Ron Paul’s new book about ending the Fed is selling very well. But not a “serious American thinker” among the lot. Right.

    I must say, I haven’t missed your absence. These assertions are so baseless that I can’t help but realize how much time I’m wasting in responding to them.

    You have to work with the Fed in place. It is now an established system.

    Our global military presence is “an established system”, but somehow I think that being the “good Democrat” you are, you’d still favor changing that system. So much for ideals…

    Connor is not exactly clear what would follow the removal of the Fed.

    Easy: the same thing that existed before the Fed was put in place. Sound money. Market forces. Natural interest rates. Restraint on government. Smaller bubbles, if any. In short: a more moral economic system. Sounds horrible, doesn’t it?

  30. Josh Williams
    September 26, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Whether funding the troops abroad or the entitlement programs at home, the federal government has ballooned into a malevolent monstrosity unrivaled throughout history.

    A coworker of mine, an ex-army vet, reminded me of the disturbing fact that there are more “military contractors” in Afghanistan, then there are regular troops. The difference is, while in practice the military has little responsibility to the public, such mercenary companies have none at all.

    As Bastiat argued, human labor never goes unemployed. If people are willing to work, there will always be opportunities for them to do so.

    This is a blindly optimistic and one sided argument and you know it. Employment and labor can be thought of a commodities like any other. There is a difference between the supply of labor, and the DEMAND for it. In other words, people’s desire to work means nothing when there is not a demand for work to be done. This is compounded by the fact that a capitalist system puts somewhat strict limits on what types of work can be rewarded. So again an abstract desire to work does not equate with an abstract need for work, only a concrete one.

    I have always wondered at the ability for capitalism to reward largely superfluous pursuits, like banking, lawyers, real estate, executive managers, disposable consumer goods, etc. While at the same time it seems to seriously undercompensate those jobs which are extremely important to society, like teachers, nurses, farmers, child care workers, janitors, secretaries, etc. I believe this is one of the problems that Karl Marx misguidedly attempted to address, and unfortunately failed.

  31. M
    September 27, 2009 at 9:33 am #

    Bob, please do not put words in my mouth. I asked you to investigate the issues. I wrote nothing about principles. Second, I wrote nothing about Skousen or communist plots either. You were writing about communist ideals using capitalistic rhetoric. Just so I am clear, I was inferring that you have bought into socialist-communist principles.

    Principle: basic assumption: an important underlying law or assumption required in a system of thought
    Encarta ® World English Dictionary

    Issue: something for discussion or of general concern
    Encarta ® World English Dictionary

  32. Edward
    September 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Josh–I would agree that it is discouraging that the most important jobs are under-compensated. But lets not credit “capitalism” for all this inequality. I’m a part time farmer (on your list of undercompensated jobs). I would be a full time farmer and I hope to be in the future if things work out. The biggest impediment I face in farming is government policy. For instance unnecessary regulations that are much harder for me to comply with as a small operation compared to a giant corporate farm. And by harder–I mean that there are things I would love to do in farming, but I just don’t have the money to meet the regulations. Or just the fact that the government subsidizes every bushel of corn and soy that farmers (mostly corporate by now) grow–thereby making me compete with my products, none of which are subsidized.

    Capitalism is turning into a dirty word. I don’t even like using it any more. But what we now have is a long shot from what capitalism used to be. The capitalism we now have is evil. I never thought I would agree with Michael Moore. ;) But while his solution is basically more government involvement, regulation–basically socialism–the real solution is a leveling of the playing field. Otherwise known as a real free market system. While there would undoubtably still be cases of inequality, it is certain that executive managers, bankers, lawyers, and those in real-estate would in large part have their paychecks brought back to reality.

  33. M
    October 3, 2009 at 6:52 am #

    Edward, I thought you might be interested in this Walter Williams article. I like his view point.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.