I start my long public absence from cyberspace with with two quotes from President Obama:
We must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That’s why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan
The U.S. “is ready and eager to assume that sacred trust…I urge you to choose Chicago. And if you do — if we walk this path together — then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.”
http://www.shallownation.com/2009/10/02/obama-olympics-2016-video-photos-10-2-09-chicago-2016-bid-in-copenhagen/
Interesting, these two quotes, from President Barack Obama.
First, let’s discuss the first of these two. (Remember that this first speech is to drum up support, of which there was and is plenty on both sides of the aisle before this speech, for an increased military presence in Afghanistan.) What is the moral source of America’s authority? Some sort of Lockean social contract? Some sort of transcendent goodness or truth? God-given inalienable rights? It’s not really clear to me what exactly he’s referring to, but in context, it seems at its root, to be a more flowery yet similar argument to what President Bush said, that you are either with us or with the terrorists (see here) in that to oppose this plan is to oppose morality itself, or perhaps the moral source of America’s authority, as if America is necessarily propelled to its current and currently increasing levels of hyperinterventionism because of its moral authority. (One would wonder, then, was the Founder’s noninterventionism somehow less moral?)
It is also clear that God is not mentioned, even obliquely, as a moral source of America’s authority (lest there be any confusion, let me be clear: this is not limited to Democrats; Republicans are guilty of the same omission; others hypocritically invoke His name while their actions betray Him).
Actions and ideology indicate that this kind of opportunity and justice is more closely related to a notion of positive rights. In addition, volumes could be spoken of how hypocritical this statement seems on its face, in that to hundreds of millions, if not billions, the very policies America is pursuing domestically and internationally promote the opposition of freedom, justice, opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples.
Now, for quote number two.
Notice the use of “sacred.” For me, as an active Mormon, and along with many other religionists of all creeds, I reserve this word for my relationship with Deity. That, alone, is sacred. Yes, as a Latter-day Saint, since I believe associations may continue into the next world, those also are sacred, but mostly in a theological contrast. If God is removed from these, the sacred goes away, too.
So what does the use of this word tell us about President Obama, and the ideology which he (and many other Americans) subscribes to? What, for him, holds the highest importance? What is sacred to him?
No question that it is important to certainly respect one another, and to value one another’s trust. But the use of that word “sacred” seems a little over-the-top, at minimum. Perhaps, you might say, it is just trivial political pandering, begging to get a global economic stimulus into his beloved Chi-town. But maybe it means something else….
GDP and a Culture of Consumption
Many have the misconception that a true advocate of the free market (a condition where individuals are free to exchange, invest, and economize without coercion) is necessarily an advocate of our consumer culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, as it is commonly known, measures three indicators: consumption, investment, and government spending. GDP is the most commonly used indicator of economic strength among the mainstream. As consumption is a presumed sign of economic strength, governments around the world perpetually create schemes and concoct incentives to try and boost consumption, for according to this measurement system (which I strongly disagree with), as consumption increases, so does the overall economic health of the nation.
Our culture of consumption is not a product of the unfettered free market, but is largely a result of state interventionism, including unholy alliances between governments and businesses of all stripes. This is nothing new: the Austrian School of Economics has been preaching this for decades. Economists of various flavors have been preaching this for centuries, if not millenia.
I clearly do not support increased government spending as a measure of economic strength. Quite the opposite. Investment alone (this would include what we call “saving”) is the prime indicator of economic health, in my mind. As the government can do nothing constructive to assist this (except to protect individuals from acts of aggression), there is really no constructive purpose to measuring GDP.
One argument against measuring investment alone is that investment is bad for the economy in the short-term. In a sense, this is true. A consumption-oriented culture and economic system has a capital structure centered around perpetual consumption. When that ceases, it is true that jobs are lost and companies go under as the capital structure is modified.
As opposed to consumption, investment is a long-term, rather than a short-term objective. In the long-term, investment leads to stable growth.
Money saved now (and not consumed) will one day be invested in some capital expenditure of value and benefit to society: a car, a house, an education, etc. Unfortunately, our consumption-oriented corporatist culture diverts resources from where they are most useful (i.e. investment) and puts them in an area where they have short-term gains at the cost of long-term rewards. That money is diverted from its proper use to purchase some expendable and often non-essential good. (When such purchases are made on credit, the consequences are even worse.)
Would consumption exist in a country with a small government and no measurement of GDP? Of course: people still need to eat, shower, brush their teeth, and enjoy recreation. But there would be less frequent frivolous purchases and more long-term planning and saving.
In short, capitalism gets a bad rap for our government-encouraged corporatist, consumer-driven culture. My advice: stop measuring GDP, get government out of the business of business, and let the market go to work. In other words, stop interfering with every transaction between individuals: and let them economize and exchange freely, rather than being bound and fettered by onerous regulation, heavy taxation, and myopic incentives.
1 Comment
Filed under Austrian Economics, fiscal policy, Libertarian, Personal, politics, recession, role of government, Social Commentary