Tag: economics

TGIF: The Economic Is Personal

Contrary to accepted doctrine, we have no grounds for regarding so-called economic liberties as less important or less worthy of protection than so-called personal, or civil, liberties. That’s because we have no essential grounds for distinguishing so-called economic ends from so-called personal ends. (Let’s dispense with the “so-called” qualifier for the sake of fluency.)

Each of us pursues ends, full stop. Our ends vary widely in content and time required for accomplishment. Some are achieved quickly; others require prolonged effort and can be called projects. Some directly involve money-making; others don’t. What could be more personal than deciding how to earn a living? Why should the sort of end sought matter to the discussion of liberty?

Ends imply action, purposeful behavior. The laws and logic of human action — praxeology, Ludwig von Mises called it — thus apply to all action (the word purposeful is redundant) no matter what is sought and by whom, whether it’s Jeff Bezos or whoever succeeded Mother Teresa. The involvement of money is irrelevant. Ends, means, costs (opportunities forgone), profit, loss, and time (explicit or implicit interest) are all relevant concepts regardless of the ends we seek. As the British economist Philip Wicksteed put it, “The general principles which regulate our conduct in business are identical with those which regulate our deliberations, our selections between alternatives, and our decisions, in all other branches of life.”

Economics as an important discipline, Thomas Sowell emphasizes, is a way to analyze action, no matter its objective. It is how we understand the unplanned social consequences and institutions — property, markets, money, prices, and so on — that unfold when diverse people with divergent personal preferences aim at objectives using scarce resources that could be used in multiple ways. It’s the study of the social cooperation that emerges among widely dispersed strangers as an unintended byproduct of individuals’ pursuit of happiness. It’s not the particular objective that makes an activity “economic.” It’s an aspect of human action in itself.

Nevertheless, it is common in government offices and many people’s minds to rank economic liberty below personal liberty. Samuel Johnson said, “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money,” but many disagree.

An infamous footnote in a New Deal-era Supreme Court decision, which upheld a federal ban on interstate trade in filled milk, formalized and reinforced the ominous distinction between economic and personal liberty, which had replaced an earlier more fully pro-liberty view. The footnote seemed to say that while the government probably can’t interfere with, for example, the exercise of religion or expression, it probably can interfere with the exercise of commerce and manufacturing. In the latter activities only, the government should be allowed great leeway to interfere.

Keep reading

Why Mankind Remains So Lost In Economic-Ignorance & Tribalistic-Warmongering

Carl Menger is widely recognized as one of the economists leading the so-called marginalist revolution along with William Stanley Jevons and Léon Walras. There are two other contributions by Menger that are relatively underappreciated and are vital for making sense of the socioeconomic order, including why mankind remains so lost in economic ignorance and tribalistic warmongering.

They are, first, his insights into the proper method or way to study the economy or social order and its emergence-evolution, and second, his application of such wisdom to explain the evolution of money and the entire socioeconomic order that further emerges thanks to money. Let’s further expand on these two.

Menger wrote an entire book devoted to discussing the proper method with which to study the social sciences, aptly titled Investigations into the Methods of the Social Sciences. So how should we study the social sciences according to Menger? He writes,

Natural organisms almost without exception exhibit, when closely observed, a really admirable functionality of all parts with respect to the whole, a functionality which is not, however, the result of human calculation, but of a natural process. Similarly we can observe in numerous social institutions a strikingly apparent functionality with respect to the whole. But with closer consideration they still do not prove to be the result of an intention aimed at this purpose, Le., the result of an agreement of members of society or of positive legislation. They, too, present themselves to us rather as “natural” products (in a certain sense), as unintended results of historical development. One needs, e.g., only to think of the phenomenon of money, an institution which to so great a measure serves the welfare of society, and yet in most nations, by far, is by no means the result of an agreement directed at its establishment as a social institution, or of positive legislation, but is the unintended product of historical development. One needs only to think of law, of language, of the origin of markets, the origin of communities and of states, etc. Now if social phenomena and natural organisms exhibit analogies with respect to their nature, their origin, and their function, it is at once clear that this fact cannot remain without influence on the method of research in the field of the social sciences in general and economics in particular. . . . Now if state, society, economy, etc., are conceived of as organisms, or as structures analogous to them, the notion of following directions of research in the realm of social phenomena similar to those followed in the realm of organic nature readily suggests itself. The above analogy leads to the idea of theoretical social sciences analogous to those which are the result of theoretical research in the realm of the physico-organic world, to the conception of an anatomy and physiology of “social organisms” of state, society, economy, etc.

Like Herbert Spencer, his contemporary and arguably the most famous and influential intellectual of the late 1800s, Menger too felt like the social order was akin to a “social organism” and should be studied using an organic or evolutionary approach similar to how we study the biological order. Menger thus felt like the methods of the physical sciences, like their use of mathematics, was as inappropriate for understanding the monumental complexity and evolution of the social order as it was for the biological one.

He writes, “I do not belong to the believers in the mathematical method as a way to deal with our science. . . . Mathematics is not a method for . . . economic research.”

Keep reading

When Trade War Threatens Real War

Since the 2020 campaign, President Joe Biden has emphasized that America seeks “competition rather than conflict” with China. In the 2023 State of the Union address, amid tensions with the Chinese government over a spy balloon that floated through American airspace, he returned to the notion, saying his administration was willing to “work with China where it can advance American interests” while also bragging the U.S. was in “the strongest position in decades to compete” with the country.

That message of productive, if a bit unfriendly, economic competition is increasingly at odds with the aggressive trade policies Biden is pursuing behind the scenes. Indeed, it’s at odds with what prominent members of the administration, including the secretary of the treasury and the White House’s top national security adviser, are now openly admitting in public speeches: The United States is escalating its trade war with China, and it is doing so by targeting the free movement of goods and money across the globe in new ways.

“Technology export controls can be more than just a preventative tool,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan told a small crowd gathered at the Capital Hilton, just blocks from the White House, in a speech delivered last September. “If implemented in a way that is robust, durable, and comprehensive, they can be a new strategic asset in the U.S. and allied toolkit to impose costs on adversaries, and even over time degrade their battlefield capabilities.”

Sullivan said the theory had already been put to the test once. After Russia rolled tanks and troops into Ukraine in early 2022, the United States responded with financial sanctions aimed at Russian President Vladimir Putin and his cronies. It also imposed severe export controls meant to hobble Russia’s industrial and military might. In Sullivan’s telling, this represented “the most stringent technology restrictions ever imposed on a major economy.”

“Those measures have inflicted tremendous costs,” Sullivan continued, “forcing Russia to use chips from dishwashers in its military equipment.”

The “adversaries” that could be targeted with that “new strategic asset” would not be limited to those that had invaded their neighbors. For Sullivan, the apparent success of the export restrictions targeting Russia meant we might reshape how America conducts foreign policy, particularly with regard to China. America should abandon the idea that it must only maintain a relative lead over China in the development of key technologies, he said. Instead, the tools and tactics of an international trade war could be used as an economic complement to America’s military arsenal—one that could effectively serve as an opening salvo in a real war.

Sullivan was speaking at a gathering of the Special Competitive Studies Project, a joint venture of tech and national security experts funded by a private foundation created by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Four days before the summit, the group published a lengthy report, co-authored by Schmidt and Robert Work, a deputy defense secretary under both President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump. The report crystallized many bipartisan worries about how China’s technological advances might factor into a future war, and its conclusions mirrored Sullivan’s: “Warfare will be waged with and against industrial and financial power and pit innovation ecosystems against each other.”

What both Sullivan and the report describe could be called a total trade war: a conflict where the exchange of goods and money across borders is viewed through a military lens.

Keep reading

World War III Has Already Started, and It’s an Economic War

In an article I published in April of 2018, titled World War III Will Be An Economic War, I outlined a number of factors that portend a large-scale conflict between East and West and why this war would be mainly economic in nature. I investigated how this conflict would actually benefit globalists and globalist institutions seeking to bring down multiple nations’ economies while hiding the engineered crisis behind a wall of geopolitical chaos and noise.

The goal? To convince the masses that national sovereignty is a plague that only leads to widespread death and that the “solution” is a one-world system – conveniently managed by the globalists, of course. That is to say, more centralization is always offered as the solution to every problem.

Furthermore, the war itself acts as a cover for the inflationary collapse that our central bank and government has created. We are already seeing fraud propagandists like White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki attempting to mislead the public into believing all our current inflation problems stem from the Ukraine war. This claim requires some impressive mental gymnastics and an epic level of ignorance, but Psaki seems to have no shame about her role as a soulless Goebbels-like figure.

One issue which I used to get a lot of arguments over was the idea that countries like Russia and China would end up so closely aligned. People claimed there were too many disparities and that the countries would ultimately turn on each other in the middle of a financial crisis.

Well, it’s four years later and now we’re going to see if that is true or not. So far, it looks like I was correct.

My position has long been that certain nations have been preparing for a collapse of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency (the primary currency used in the majority of trade around the world). My belief is that America’s top economic position is actually an incredible weakness; the dollar’s hegemony is not a strength, but an Achilles heel. If the dollar was to lose reserve status, the whole of the U.S. economy and parts of the global economy would implode, leaving behind only those who prepared – those who saw the writing on the wall and planned ahead.

Keep reading

80% of All US Dollars in Existence Have Been Printed in Just the Last Two Years

Since March of 2020, Americans and the world alike have watched from the sidelines as power hungry politicians have ushered in draconian lockdowns, shutdowns, police state measures, and brought the economy to its knees. While governments around the planet used their central banks to devalue their currencies by printing money to fund their tyranny, the US led the way down this road to fiscal horror.

Thanks to the trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve has printed over the last two years, America is currently in an inflation crisis. One need only look at the price of groceries over the last two years to realize just how bad of a crisis we are currently experiencing.

As the Biden Administration blames high prices on greedy industries, this is little more than a distraction from the actual perpetrator. Nevertheless, the left continues to attribute soaring costs on businesses making “too much profit.”

While these corporations are not innocent in this debacle, the role of America’s central bank is far more insidious. As government spending has skyrocketed over the last two years, they have financed their massive expenditures by stealing value from your savings by printing more money through the central bank.

When you print more money it means there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services, which causes prices to rise. In just the past three fiscal years, federal spending has swollen to nearly $7 trillion a year, up from about $4.4 trillion in fiscal year 2019. Spending was $6.6 trillion in 2020, and $6.8 trillion in 2021.

If we want to put this into perspective, we can take a look at the monetary supply at the beginning of 2020, which showed just $4.0192 trillion in circulation. By January 2021, that number had jumped up to $6.7 trillion — but this was only the beginning.

By November of last year, that number climbed to $20.354 trillion dollars in circulation — meaning that since January 2020, the United States has printed nearly 80% of all US dollars in existence. 

Keep reading

When It Comes To 2022, You Should Definitely Prepare For The Worst

If you have a bad feeling about 2022, you are not alone.  As we approach the new year, it seems like things are going wrong all around us. We are facing the most epic supply chain crisis in our history, inflation is out of control, vaccine mandates are killing careers and forcing people out of jobs all over the country, and America is the most deeply divided that I have ever seen in my entire lifetime. Meanwhile, another wave of the pandemic appears to be building, our hospitals are already packed with non-COVID patients, global hunger is on the rise, and a major war could erupt in the Middle East at literally any moment. Unfortunately, I am entirely convinced that many of the problems that we are currently dealing with will escalate to an entirely new level in 2022.

For example, if you think that inflation is bad now, just wait until you see what is coming. We just got more evidence that wholesale inflation numbers are absolutely soaring…

New wholesale inflation numbers from September are in and once again prove the rapid increase in prices for everyday items isn’t “transitory” as President Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed.

Wholesale prices rose by 8.6% compared to September 2020, matching the largest increase on record.

The days of relatively low inflation are gone for good. As wholesale inflation numbers continue to spike at a very alarming rate, it is inevitable that these cost increases will be passed along to consumers.

Keep reading

UK’s Prince Charles Calls For ‘Vast Military-Style Campaign’ By Elites To Achieve Global ‘Fundamental Economic Transition’

The United Kingdom’s Prince Charles called for a “vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector,” using the “trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP,” to “fundamental economic transition” during a climate change conference on Monday.

“My plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required,” Charles declared. “We know this will take trillions, not billions, of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt simply cannot afford to go green.”

“Here we need a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector,” he continued. “With trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders, it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.”

Keep reading