As seen in Canada Free Press.
Ever since the advent of Keynesianism in 1936, governments have presumed to assist economies with government interventions of one sort or another. Most often this involves the use of “stimulus” programs. In every occasion such assistance fails – and predictably so. The Middle Man Factor tells us why.
Since the 1970’s the concept of “cutting out the middle man” has served as a central tenet of modern business strategy. Nearly every business textbook from this point forward advocated “direct to consumer” sales and marketing. Andy Bezos, the founder of Amazon, became a billionaire “overnight” primarily because he was able to leverage the efficiencies of “cutting out the middle man.” Nevertheless, our political, economic and media classes have nearly succeeded in scouring the Middle Man Factor concept from public discourse.
The Middle Man Factor is rarely articulated or emphasized in the body politic. The Middle Man Factor is not discussed on the news or on the most popular news shows. The Middle Man is Missing. And we need to find him. Fast.
The Middle Man concept is vital to any Conservative foray into the Liberal hegemony over the world of economics ideas and rhetoric. Better than this the Middle Man concept begs the obvious question in any discussion of policy or economics, “but what about the Middle Man Factor?” Better still, the Middle Man Factor concept requires no white board demonstrations of higher math or economics research articles; it is easy to understand, explain – and to persuade others of its implications. The Middle Man concept plays a crucial role in vaccinating the population from infection by the Liberal lexicon of dissimulation.
The Middle Man concept drives awareness of the simple fact that in any economic transaction requiring a “middle man,” the value of the good or service is degraded. For example, if John wants to give Tim ten dollars but for whatever reason must send the ten dollars via George, George will require some portion of the ten dollars for himself. Examples are legion: ATM fees, money orders, cars, groceries, pretty much everything. Yet, the greatest Middle Man in the history of the world remains unindicted: The U.S. Federal Government.
Everyone on the planet who reads understands this and its implications – or used to. Government’s money management is derided on numerous fronts – wealth transfers, redistribution of incomes, so-called Stimulus packages, manipulations of interest rates, of the markets, of the currency. All of these activities are affected by the Middle Man concept: For every tax dollar the government receives it distributes a value less than a dollar. How could it be otherwise? How could anyone, even the Democrat Party, argue with this assertion – this truism? Any argument is restricted to how large the middleman effect happens to be.
The crucial aspect of the Middle Man concept is the absence of necessity for mucking about in the weeds of “evidence.” Engaging in evidence-based or even logic-based argument with the Left is almost always an exercise in futility. The Left almost always bases its arguments on the authority of more research and experts than those to which Conservatives can appeal. Certainly, nearly three decades of Global Warming activism makes this obvious. We cannot easily beat the Left on the basis of research or data – no matter that we’re right – they claim access to their own. And, they are quite right, whether it be the product of the Leftist occupation of academics in general or economics in particular. The Left can find one or ten distinguished Professors who will endorse anything. Heck, most economics professors did their dissertations on the value of government intervention in the economy. Accordingly, calling into question the validity of the Left’s data or experts is pointless.
Appeals to historical evidence are of even less value than the contemporary or theoretical variety. The further back in time the more likely it is the government-run schools have reconstructed history so thoroughly there is no understanding of the economic juggernaut of the 1980’s, following (cause-effect notion) directly upon the Reagan Revolution, i.e. massive cuts in taxes and regulations (airlines, trucking, etc.). Nowadays, unless the listener is 55 or over, any such reference to the real data from the 1980’s is challenged by the unknowing matriculants of government schools. And, if on occasion, a bit of truth about the prosperity of the 1980’s is acknowledged, the 1980’s are nevertheless villainized as a time of irresponsible tax cuts, rich getting richer and poor poorer, a widening income gap, and, ultimately the “decade of greed.”
Coping with this sort of ignorance in one’s friends and family is tolerable – everyone knows the potentially fatal consequences of religious or political discussions. But the revisionist history of the 1980’s is like déjà vu “all over again.” Our political, academic, and economist classes, as well as the Complicit Press, are all too happy to deride the 1980’s juggernaut, to talk about “responsible tax cuts,” to scoff at the assertion the 1980’s made everyone better off – and most of these players actually believe what they’re saying. Despite the beacon of prosperity and hope the Reagan Revolution shone in the 80’s and deep into the 90’s, “everyone knows” that any modern reference to the Revolution is déclassé hyperbole. It is almost impossible to counter this Liberal belief system. For every analysis of the 1980’s declaring prosperity the Liberal refers to his own overfull library of research and analyses declaring just the opposite. The tax cuts argument was proven three times in the last century. Its detractors say it ain’t so. In the absence of a mutually endorsed fact base, then, all that is left to the Conservative is an appeal to Logic. Sadly, it is widely understood that Liberal Logic is an oxymoron.
The peerless effectiveness of the Middle Man concept lies in its simplicity and its self-evident veracity. It is inarguable. It is intuitive. It is logical. It is easily recognized at play in every area of society and economics.
The most infuriating thing about the Middle Man concept is it is never articulated as manifest by the Left, or the Right. Why is it we are yet to hear a journalist ask of the President – or more likely the Press Secretary (or perhaps a Skype to the golf course), “You propose a 1 trillion dollar Stimulus Plan. How is it that spending 1 trillion dollars stimulates the economy when the Middle Man concept tells us it will cost the taxpayer more than 1 trillion dollars in taxes to do so? Wouldn’t that then be a net loss to the taxpayer?”
For our purposes, the Middle Man concept, applied to Government, can be condensed to a single truism: If government touches it (a dollar), it’s worth less than before the government touched it.
The provincial Middle Man concept provides the Conservative a rhetorical Leviathan – inarguably declaring Stimulus packages are never stimulating – there is a net cost to the economy when the government serves as middleman. Of course, the same analysis applies to government spending of any sort at all. The question that should be begged at some point goes further: “Say, if we have to administer wealth transfers from the rich to the poor, why the heck are we doing it through the government?”
We live in a Society so gullible and with a political class so deceitful that the Democrats were able to recast a massive Democrat-initiated policy failure – pressuring banks to give mortgages to credit-unworthy persons – into “predatory loans,” in absence of any reason or logic – or data. They got away with it. Words mean things. Ideas mean things. So too there will arise a Conservative enlightenment if we but repeat the words “Middle Man,” at every opportunity – whether it is in context or not. Who knows, we might even see Middle Man elevated to the storied heights of other phrases embedded in the American thought space – “trickle down economics,” “rich getting richer,” “irresponsible tax cuts,” “fiscal cliff,” and “job lock.” Oh, wait, the Democrats jettisoned “job lock” pretty quickly – smart Democrats.
The Middle Man concept is powerful and unassailable and tailor-made for Conservatives. Little else is. So let’s all agree – morning, noon and night we’ll articulate the words, “Middle Man,” wherever we happen to be, on the golf course or on TV.