Zero Sum Game Lame, Inane, Insane

By Dr. Brad Lyles    Wednesday, November 2, 2011 As seen in Canada Free Press Most things in life are a matter of perspective. For example, regarding the difference of opinion about wearing mink, there is the perspective of the fur-wearer; then there is the perspective of the fur-bearer.  Such matters of perspective, inclusive of assumption (presumption?) sets, bear upon the relationship of the proletariat (99% per OWS) to the “rich” (1% per OWS). For the sake of discussion, let us initially consider the “rich” to be those whose annual household income places them in the top 1% of American income-earners, those whose households earn more than $350,000.00 (before-tax income) per year. This figure includes the 270,000 American households earning more than one million dollars per year. Keep in mind, however, the top 1% of U.S. income earners are NOT in every case the wealthiest – wealth, instead, refers to “net worth,” and not to annual income. Accordingly, a person might earn no annual income at all – yet could well still be a multi-millionaire. This holds true even were we to account for dividend earnings on bonds or capital appreciation of stocks. A person with a minimum of ten to twenty million dollars invested might reasonably earn one million (taxable) dollars per year in dividends/appreciation. Certainly, these rich are included in our 1%. Paradoxically, also included in our 1% are those citizens who earn $1,000,000.00 or more per year but have a negative net worth – they owe more than they are worth. Clearly, this “top 1%” language doesn’t really refer to anything in particular other than a “bunch of rich people.” Then again, what is meant by “rich” people?: High income? High “earned” income, like from a job? High “unearned” income (like from investments)? High net worth? High debt-potential? What? In any case, let us concede that the top 1% of U.S. income earners are NOT the wealthiest 1% of U.S. citizens. This is a small distinction but a crucial one. Instead, let us define, henceforth, the top 1% of Americans to be the wealthiest (highest net worth) Americans, and NOT the top 1% of annual income earners. It is these wealthy, in particular, who most deserve our resentment and our wrath according to Obama and his fellow travelers. These are the people who inherited their wealth, stole their wealth, lied and cheated for their wealth, perpetrated fraud and cons for their wealth, married wealth, leeched off wealth, those who achieved wealth through patronage (“it’s not what you know but who you know”), and, for the remainder, simply everyone who is wealthy who does not deserve to be wealthy – which we shall consider for our purposes to be all of the wealthy. Furthermore, let us consider that the ENTIRETY of the 1% of the wealthiest Americans are evil and that NONE of them deserve their wealth; none earned their wealth. Let us consider them to be the vilest of the vile. Let us also presume that they have done and will do whatever is necessary – immoral, hateful, despicable, cruel – to obtain more and more wealth, more than they could ever need. As the OWS protestors decry, the rest of us poor slobs are the 99% of the population who are not wealthy. Defining wealthy people as entirely evil and undeserving, what next? We still must define our own situation – that of the 99%.  This is easy. Most of us wish to be wealthy ourselves. More than this, it is also likely true that most of us would be happy enough were everyone to be wealthy. Regrettably, there are some of us (the most vocal) who would be satisfied were none to be wealthy, for all to be impoverished, as long as each of us was the same. Nevertheless, for argument’s sake, we shall accept that most of us wish to be wealthy and would not be upset if everyone else were wealthy too. Now, how can we become wealthy? In order that we all become wealthy, it would be logical to examine the methods by which the currently wealthy people got their wealth. This will not work for two reasons. First, since we’re assuming that all wealthy people are evil and got their wealth by evil means, we cannot become wealthy by similarly evil means because we are not evil or willing to become evil ourselves to do so. We must divine another path. Unfortunately, we are blocked in this effort by the “zero-sum game.” The “zero-sum game” concept is deceivingly simple. It is so simple that almost every commentator, politician and pundit fails to understand it. If they understand it, they fail to articulate it. Zero-sum game,  finite amount of wealth, Person A can only become wealthy at Person B’s expense The zero-sum game refers to the presumption that there exists only a finite amount of any particular resource, including wealth. Since there is only a finite amount of wealth, Person A can only become wealthy at Person B’s expense. For A to win, B must lose. If one presumes the “zero-sum game,” there is no escaping this fateful logic. Understandably, this philosophy innervates the 99 vs. 1 per cent rhetoric polluting the airwaves today. This is because of the undeniable conclusion that the 1% wealthiest Americans are wealthy primarily because they are the best at taking wealth from the rest of us – best at exploiting the rest of us. Accordingly, the economically fatuous would have us believe that we should deprive the rich of their ill-gotten gains. There is no other path to fairness. Of course, anyone with common sense should recognize the intellectual trap presented by the “zero-sum game,” at least regarding everyone being wealthy. This trap is formed of the inescapable paradox that if “fairness” is our goal, everyone must have the “same.” Even were we to be entirely successful at collecting and redistributing all of the wealth of the top 1% of the population, none of us would be wealthy. At best, we would all be slightly less poor. This is the inevitable consequence of the “zero-sum game” – we’re all still poor. For Liberal politicians to pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at its most obscene. Back home, we’re still trying to figure out how we can all be rich. Pursuing this goal, it is clear that the zero-sum game concept is of no value to us. Fortunately, there exists an entire theory of economics located far from the zero-sum game. This system is referred to as Capitalism – the sort of economic system once common to America. The basic tenets of Capitalism were first articulated by Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher widely considered to be the father of Capitalism (Wealth of Nations, 1776). Not only did he describe the means by which individuals could become rich; he also described the means by which entire societies (the rest of us) can become rich. These concepts are the foundation for the understanding that wealth is created and not divisible – one gets wealthy by “adding value,” not by stealing wealth from someone else. These sorts of ideas, ideas that allow escape from the “zero-sum game” trap, are most often articulated in our time by the “Austrian School” of economics, otherwise known as the Supply-side School of economics. “Supply-side” economics, however, is better understood as Freedom economics – the economic principles underlying the Free Market. The Free Market requires that individuals be permitted ownership of the fruits of their own labor –they are permitted to own private property. Many hundreds of years of economic history supported this concept. Even the Pilgrims figured it out after they almost all starved to death when, initially, all of their property was considered “communal” property. Instead of redistributionist methodologies – those of Obama and the Left –  that would divide the zero-sum pie “equally,” giving each his “fair share,” (equally meager shares),Freedom economics suggests that if we permit individuals to own private property we will paradoxically and inexorably increase the size of the pie for everybody. On the contrary, if we continue to believe that the “zero-sum game” defines our economics, we will remain incapable of escaping the inevitable consequences where only a very few can be rich, or none. To reiterate, zero-sum game principles allow for only one of two economic outcomes – one where 99% of citizens are poor and one where 100% of citizens are poor. Most would agree that neither outcome is acceptable. It should now be understood (especially by all of our brain-atrophied economists who refuse to understand it) that most of the rhetorical bilge endemic to our politics is based upon the “zero-sum” game assumption. This fact alone should provide conservatives the polemical high-ground in any discussions of economics, the poor, the rich, and everyone’s “fair share” and more. The defining question in every instance should be, “So, Peter, are you saying you believe in Zero-Sum Game Economics? If so, what is the basis of your belief?” This zero-sum game allegation should be employed by conservatives in every possible situation. The “zero-sum game” concept is a defeatist concept, a demoralizing concept, an intellectually bankrupt concept. Anyone clever enough to insist that it remain an unspoken assumption should be routed; their belief should be illuminated for all to see. Anyone foolish enough to promote the “zero-sum game” concept “out in the open” should be declared, loudly, to support its ultimate and universally impoverishing consequences. When one understands the dismal inevitable consequences of the “zero-sum game” redistributionist policies of the Left, it is virtually inconceivable that anyone could ever have been persuaded to them. Nevertheless, the Left articulates such policies with abandon and without shame. Our very own President was recently seen to remark, on live T.V., that wealth was “unfairly distributed” in the U.S. These sorts of ideas are not only Marxist – they are pre-Marx. As noted above, such collectivist communal ideas were both conceived and abandoned in the earliest days of American history – by the Pilgrims. It is not hard to understand why the Left is not known for its historical perspective or intellectual rigor. “Zero-sum game” economics is failed economics and inevitably universally impoverishing economics. It is indelibly saddening that such economic concepts survive – and color so much of contemporary political language. Instead, it should finally be understood, by all, once and for all, that the “zero-sum game” refrain is lame, inane, and insane.

Rich or Poor

 

Let us pray that in November, 2012, America will vote for wealth, and for freedom.As seen in Canada Free Press

By Dr. Brad Lyles M.D  Tuesday, November 22, 2011What are the RICH? Who are they? Where do they come from? How do they get to be RICH? How do they stay RICH? Who cares? Well, you should, unless you don’t want to be RICH, and who doesn’t want to be RICH? Now, having chosen a path to RICHNESS, it is necessary we acknowledge the widely accepted notion that one must understand the nature of the “path” to a goal in order to achieve the goal. Let’s start with the example of the not uncommon goal of becoming a physician. The path to this goal includes a minimum of 11 years of effort after high school. Typically, the 18 year-old high school graduate who intends to become a doctor is consciously committing to four years of college, four years of medical school and another three to eight years of Residency training. Then, finally, the 18 year old (now 29 year old or older) can anticipate beginning her medical practice – heavily in debt of course. The path to doctor-hood requires much more than eleven years of time, however. It also requires eleven years of endless study and achievement: A’s (in hard classes) during college, sufficiently high marks in medical school (to remain in medical school), and 12-16 hour days of study, class work, and clinic work, for years. That’s not all. The path to doctor-hood also requires lots of money – for tuition – for room and board – for years. There’s more: The path to doctor-hood requires an enormous capacity for deferred pleasure (earning no decent money until age 29 soonest) – and calculated risk (the 18 year-old pre-med student must accept the risk that he or she might die in a car wreck or die of cancer long before being qualified to practice). Finally, in order to achieve doctor-hood, the 18 year-old must choose to brave eleven years of lost opportunities, what is known in economics as opportunity cost. To get a feel for this, picture your college friend who went out into the world with his four-year business-major bachelor’s degree while you went off to medical school. Too soon you’re paying tuition for the pleasure of wearing cadaver grease while your friend is making $50,000.00 per year, driving a new car, saving for a house and getting treated like an adult. Because you were pre-med in college, you were never able to do all the fun things your friend the business major did – you had to study – you had to pay opportunity cost. In medical school you did not have the opportunity to earn decent money, buy a car, get a house, or have people treat you nicely. Residency wasn’t much better. In conclusion, our example “path,” i.e. the path to doctor-hood, requires a barge-load of hard work, long-hours, nights and weekends, eleven years after high school, significant risk, relentless deferred pleasure, and horrendous opportunity cost. For the uninitiated, the path to doctor-hood might sound eerily draconian. Not so. The path to RICHNESS is far more challenging. The path to RICHNESS is far more hazardous. It is strewn with appreciably more uncertainty than the path to doctor-hood. On the path to doctor-hood you know that if you merely survive the journey you’ll end up with financial security (of a sort) and public standing (of a sort). On the contrary, the path to RICHNESS makes no promises at all. You might work for thirty days and strike it rich or work for thirty years and strike out. Even so, research tells us that the path to RICHNESS is much like the path to doctor-hood. It requires 80-hour work weeks, commitment, and the willingness to accept ceaseless deferred pleasure, horrible risks and huge opportunity costs. What about the path to POORNESS?  Clearly, the path to POORNESS is merely the path to RICHNESS, but in the opposite direction. Where else could such a path lead, a path constructed of a choice or inability to defer pleasure, a choice or inability to work hard, a choice or inability to behave appropriately, a choice or inability to “keep on going when the going gets tough,” and a choice or inability to tolerate opportunity cost and risk? It is commonly assumed (wrongly) that the paths to wealth and poverty could not be as mundane as this, as predictable as this. Yet they are. A brief survey of our communities and of history tells us so. How could it be otherwise? The law of averages tells the tale. Hard work and dedication will lead to success most of the time whereas no work and lack of initiative will lead to failure most of the time. This holds true even if we include the ‘unfair’ cases of inherited wealth and the tragedy of undeserved failure. There are always going to be “bad” people who get what they do not deserve and “good” people who lose everything to a tragedy. Life does that. Is all of this common sense? Certainly. But as Oscar Wilde said, “Common sense is not so common.” Accordingly, even though modern man benefits from 5,000 years of recorded history poised to help him figure out how to create wealth, many modern men persist in the delusion that wishful thinking, majority vote, and willful ignorance will suffice instead. Many modern men are also relentless in doing everything possible to sabotage the creation of wealth, for themselves, and for society. They create needless bureaucracies that not only slow, but actually reverse, the creation of wealth. They punish the creation of wealth by heavily taxing it, appropriating it, and diluting it (with inflation). The situation is so dire, now, that it is nearly inconceivable that anyone might become rich any longer. More is at stake in all of this than merely the ability to afford both mail-order and downloaded versions of Netflix. What is at stake is America’s ability to remain free within its borders and the world’s ability to become more free – ‘as America goes, so goes the world.’ If American society persists in its populist compulsion to punish all of the behaviors by which individuals and societies become wealthy, how will it defend itself when it becomes too impoverished to afford defense? How will it protect the unalienable rights of its citizens when its government finds it necessary to impoverish its citizens – by law – (think Obamacare’s individual mandate, for example)? So, RICH or POOR at this moment, individual Americans are at all times and by innumerable means free (for now) to choose their own paths to wealth or poverty, are free to dream and to pay, or not to pay, the price of their dreams. On a single day, however, less than twelve months from now, Americans will collectively decide whether or not they will permit themselves a choice in their own futures, a choice of their own paths, a choice of their own pursuit of happiness. Rather than a choice of mere RICHNESS or POVERTY, however, Americans will ultimately be faced with the choice of liberty or servitude. Paradoxically, though, if Americans fail to recognize the true nature of the paths to the mundane states of RICHNESS or POVERTY, they will find themselves unintentionally committed to the proverbial road paved with good intentions – to a hell of their own making. Let us pray that in November, 2012, America will vote for wealth, and for freedom.

Eating the Rich

The rich possess the capacity to make us all rich. We merely have to stop punishing them for doing so. We must stop eating the rich As seen in Canada Free Press By Dr. Brad Lyles      Saturday, December 3, 2011 Consider the Grimm Brothers’ Fairy Tale, The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. This Fairy Tale describes what happens when an impatient farmer wants more Golden Eggs more rapidly and consequently splits open his Goose to find them. Of course, none are to be found. So, after eating the Goose, he is left, as expected, with nothing to chew on but his pride and imprudence. We’re living that very same Fairy Tale in the United States today. We are dangerously close to killing our Golden Geese and carelessly impoverishing ourselves for decades to come. Comparing America’s fiscal policy with the Golden Goose Fairy Tale highlights the ridiculous and shameful thinking (if one were to go so far as to call it “thinking”) about the issues of wealth and poverty in the United States. Ever since the heady days of the Great Depression, when FDR gave birth to his Perfect Storm of Big Government Programs, (which, all told, extended the Depression by 7 years), one group of Congresspersons after another has allowed itself to believe that Government intervention into the economy is a good idea. FDR went so far as to call such schemes the “Second Bill of Rights.” One wonders whether the Left could have so easily infested and overrun our country were Americans not distracted, at the time, by a two-front War with Germany and Japan. Moreover, one wonders if it could be true (likely not, but one wonders) that Roosevelt was cunning enough, even before the days of Bill Clinton, to act upon the tactic Rahm Emanuel has so cleverly described as “Never let a crisis go to waste.” In particular one wonders whether there was a political calculation involved in Roosevelt’s alleged decision to ignore reports of Japan’s naval presence near Hawaii, at least long enough to permit the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Certainly, that particular crisis, in addition to the multiple crises of the War that followed, served FDR handsomely in his relentless efforts to mutate the United States from its Constitutionally mandated federal structure to the All-Powerful Central Government structure the Founders clearly intended it NOT be. Regardless of any initial volition on his part, however, World War II nevertheless permitted FDR to pull and tear at the Constitution so effectively that the United States of 1945 was scarcely related in any way to the United States the Greatest Generation had left behind in 1940 when they marched off to war. “Look ma, no hands!” FDR’s palace coup succeeded almost effortlessly. Who could oppose him? FDR as a President obsessed with destroying everything America ever promised – free markets, free individuals, balance of powers A close reading of American history reveals FDR as a President obsessed with destroying everything America ever promised – free markets, free individuals, balance of powers. Worse, his illicit designs are even still indelibly stamped upon nearly every word of modern American political rhetoric and the bulwark of assumption sets upon which such rhetoric is built. For example, our Declaration of Independence famously declares that “All Men Are Created Equal.” Through a sophistry pungent with malodorous perfidy, FDR transmogriphied the guarantee of equal rights for everyone into a universal right to equal outcomes for everyone. In his own 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” FDR declared that the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Instead, Roosevelt declared that Americans should each be guaranteed, among other things, the right to a job, with a “living wage,” the right to housing, and the right to medical care. Curiously, Roosevelt never explained how such rights were to be enforced without depriving others of the rights to their own private property. For example, how could such rights be procured without presuming person A is granted a controlling right to person B’s labor? And if we are all to agree that there should exist among us persons who hold controlling rights to our own private property (which the Second Bill of Rights intended to guarantee) who among us shall be deemed worthy to decide who gets what and how much? There are none such. Failing to understand the Golden Goose Predicament, Roosevelt ignored the fact that life is always about trade-offs: If you want more of this you have to settle for less of that – the principle economists call TANSTFL – “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”  FDR’s most glittering heir, Obama, believes, as did his ancestor, that both money and rights can be woven from whole cloth.  Consequently, if the Goose isn’t laying Golden Eggs fast enough, we can borrow against the presumption that the Goose will at some point in the future lay more and faster tomorrow. Worse, Roosevelt failed, as do his offspring, to understand the ultimate moral of the Golden Goose Predicament: Killing the Golden Goose precludes the laying of any more Golden Eggs. History has proven, repeatedly, in every case, that when Society pampers and protects its Golden Geese, it gets more Golden Eggs more rapidly, and most everyone benefits. This “Eggs for All” phenomenon, to mix metaphors, is similar to the 1980’s insight that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” To understand this, one has to flip from perceiving the rich as lazy jerks who don’t deserve their riches, or who stole their riches, or who just got lucky, to perceiving the rich as unwitting producers of wealth for us all. It is not too hard to do this if we merely consider the world as it is. The rich (or at least their advisers) are NOT stupid. Assuming this, then, it is not hard to understand that the rich will work to protect their wealth and they will usually have enough wealth to protect it very well – in purchasing the services of accountants, lawyers, bankers, politicians, “favors,” off-shore banks, etc., etc. Our nation’s penurious tax policy with its progressive income tax punishes the rich at the very outset Our nation’s penurious tax policy with its progressive income tax punishes the rich at the very outset. If they invest in our businesses, their “capital gains” are taxed. If they are silly enough to invest in their own businesses or to stride upon the foolhardy path of starting a new business, they are penalized with corporate taxes and more, along with overzealous regulations and regulators (can you say, “NLRB?”). Isn’t it as easy as pie, then, to see that any rich person not entirely insane would choose to place his or her money in “safe” investments such as Treasury Bills (which produce zero economic gain)? Consider, the rich will earn safe interest on the money they invest in U.S. T-Bills, with no more effort than putting on their sunscreen on the beaches of Grand Cayman. And why shouldn’t they drop their money into T-Bills and focus on sunning themselves? In present-day America how can we expect them to do otherwise? They are not stupid – they know too well that if they exert themselves to invest (unsafely) in wealth-creating American business, they RISK EVERYTHING AND they will have to work hard. Only an idiot would do such a thing and the rich are not idiots. Because we live in ObamaWorld, investments in American business and American dreams evaporate or are never made in the first place. The aspirations of the American proletariat, of the alleged beneficiaries of Obama’s largesse, go begging, remaining unfulfilled, withering on the vine, morphing into fantasies of what might have been if only its leaders had a clue. America’s greatest gift to Mankind – proof that individual freedom and free markets are required for prosperity America’s greatest gift to Mankind – proof that individual freedom and free markets are required for prosperity – is squandered, derided, trampled beneath the prancing banners of false prophets. If America is to remain great, a bastion of freedom and prosperity, it must remain capable of the unprecedented wealth creation that made it great in the first place. It must remain capable of defending itself (guns cost money). It must remain free. It must liberate its markets. Its leaders must once again act with prudence. This can be accomplished ONLY if we understand the true nature of the rich. The rich are always our unwitting accomplices in our own creation of wealth – providing capital for our business start-ups, funding innovations (Apple, Ipod, cell-phone, laptop), buying our stuff, and creating “demand.” They are our Geese that lay the Golden Eggs, even if they don’t deserve to be, even if it galls us that they are and even if they act like slatternly libertines on TV. There are only two options available to us if we are able to recognize the true nature – the GOLDEN GOOSE nature – of the rich, and if we want more wealth ourselves. We can either support our Geese in laying more Golden Eggs – creating more wealth for us all – or we can starve our Geese, punish our Geese, impoverish our Geese and consequently impoverish ourselves. It must be emphasized, again, that the rich are NOT stupid – or at least their advisers are NOT stupid. The rich place their money where it will provide the most gain, for them. History limns this fact with countless examples – recall the 1980’s, when the “rich got richer,” when we allowed the rich to keep more of their money. This so-called decade of greed was the self-same American decade of unprecedented growth and prosperity for EVERYONE – who cares if the rich got richer?! The evil, greedy, undeserving rich are a national treasure. They are our Golden Geese. They are unintentionally our unwitting accomplices in the creation of wealth for all of us.  We should care for them, treasure them, support them – we should certainly not harm them. The rich possess the capacity to make us all rich. We merely have to stop punishing them for doing so. We must stop eating the rich. Dr. Brad Lyles M.D  Bio Dr. Lyles can be reached at:williamlyles@hotmail.com

Inflation Depredation Without Cessation

As published in Canada Free Press

|

By Dr. Brad Lyles  Tuesday, October 18, 2011 “Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing…society than to debauch the currency (by a continuing process of inflation). (This) process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”—John Maynard Keynes, 1919 Who cares? You should. Keynes is the father of modern economics. He is also the progenitor of the West’s flamboyant proclivity for government intervention into the economy. Keynes was the first of the new breed of scholars of the ‘dismal science’ who promoted government intervention into almost every aspect of a nation’s economy, especially in the case of free market economies, as exemplified by the free market economy once present in the United States. It was argued that the State’s depredations upon an economy were necessary in order to provide “stability,” “security,” and (whilst stealing freedom away) “freedom from want.” In the 1930s, at a time when Keynesianism was all the rage, Statist politicians such as President Roosevelt, all three full terms of him, appropriated Keynesian Theory to support every misguided “Program” he could think of on Fridays after watching the young ones play tennis. In fact, it was Roosevelt who fantasized the notorious “Second Bill of Rights,” promising a “chicken in every pot” and Freedom from Want and Insecurity all the days of our lives. Keynesian theory of macroeconomics Lord Keynes, the celebrated British economist and author of the Keynesian theory of macroeconomics, wrote these prophetic words in 1919, a mere two years after the October Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and only one year following the end of the Great War. Astonishingly, this was a time in American history when the U.S. government didn’t have the first clue about how to cause inflation. And why shouldn’t he have so promised? Isn’t it true that Keynes’ virginal economic theory supported everything Roosevelt was doing? Sadly, yes. Essentially, Keynes, and the preponderance of elite “economics” scholars at the time (and since), signed a blank check for Roosevelt and every succeeding American President, enshrining the populist and popular delusion that somebody else would always pay for the free lunch. How is it that Keynes was so damaging and how does this relate to you and your pocketbook? Keynes’ theory permitted governments to trot out sophisticated theories in support of their indelible aptitude for mucking about with the economy. For the first time in history, government did not have to exert itself to justify its meddling in the affairs of free individuals and free markets. On the contrary, governments could now prance about with a golden hall pass allowing them as many sleazy financial manipulations as they could imagine – and they have imagined a lot. Prior to Keynes, the State meddled with national economies but had no academic ‘expert’ justification for doing so. No more! Since Keynes – garrulous government hacks and economics professors have paraded together, lock-step, around the public square, newfound brothers in arms. Curiously, even when Keynesian Theory was proven wrong in the stagflation of the mid-1960’s, both the political and economics gangs joined together to create “modified” Keynesian theory, all brands of which still dictate Statist interventions into a country’s economy just so. Perhaps one explanation for such idiocy from Academe (assuming we’d ever have to explain such a thing) is the fact that for the first time in history, the political elite actually invited the otherwise socially ostracized economics nerds into their councils and their parties, as long as the nerds continued to justify what the political elites were already doing – screwing with the economy. At all times prior, (other than for Marx and Russia), the notion of central control of an economy was cast aside as unrealistic and unsellable. Who in their right mind would vote to allow a bunch of partisan politicians to wield control over a nation’s lifeblood – its economy? Following in the wake of Keynes and his followers, however, American voters voted for just this – to empower government to take comprehensive control of the nation’s economy. Geez. They should be able to trust the Professors, shouldn’t they? Nowadays, even though Keynesian theory has been refuted on virtually all grounds, as have its “fellow traveler” theories, government apparatchiks persist in trading upon it to justify their every political whim. And, woe be to the political analyst foolish enough to suggest that government control might not be such a great idea on a priori grounds alone. Such a one is pilloried and marginalized immediately following his first talk-show appearance. Moreover, in a Society where free speech is flaunted, any questioning of the reigning macroeconomic Statist-in-charge doctrine is met with punishment both swift and severe, if unseen. How could it be otherwise? What else would likely happen to someone who questions BOTH the political elites AND the academic elites of our country at the same time? Complicit Media’s death-grip upon the flow of ideas in the U.S Given the Complicit Media’s death-grip upon the flow of ideas in the U.S., most people don’t know that “Keynesian,” “Classical,” “Neo-Keynesian,” and “Monetarist” economic theories, the ones justifying government mucking about with the economy, are NOT the only economic theories germane to Western democratic economies. These theories are NOT the only rigorously derived theories, i.e. the kind that use confusing mathematics to support their claims. On the contrary, there exists a body of research and writing entirely foreign to Keynesian postulates. It is known as the ‘Austrian School’ (of economics). It has also been referred to as the supply side or free markets school of economics. Essentially, the Austrian School proposes that even though common sense is not so common it nevertheless applies to economic systems: a) Letting any power, especially the State, control ANY aspect of the economy is no better than letting the fox guard the henhouse. b) Lord Acton was right: “Power corrupts…” In other words, even if one were to permit only honorable politicians (oxymoron?) to manipulate the economy, the siren songs of such power would inevitably corrupt them anyway. c) Freedom Works. In other words, government’s role in an economy is best limited to staying out of the way and enforcing legal transactions, and that’s it. Is it any wonder that Austrian economics is NOT the most popular dinner topic at government or academic functions? Compliance with Austrian principles would at once eliminate at least 50% of the Economics Departments in the U.S., eliminate 95% of the government bureaucracy’s power, and, worst of all, it would strand almost all of Academe’s economists in the foyer, all dressed up and no place to go. It is notable that Austrian economic theory arrived on the scene in 1922 (Mises’Socialism), fully eleven years before Keynes’ magnum opus and only five years after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Admittedly, Marx, and his Communist Manifesto, went public in 1848. Nevertheless, Austrian economics was in large measure based upon the far earlier work of Adam Smith, (Wealth of Nations, 1776). Smith is commonly referred to as the Father of Capitalism and free markets. “Hey, wait a second!” you’re likely thinking, “didn’t the Founders envision free markets for America?” Yes! You get an A! In fact, the Founders intended that our government be permitted the least possible entrée into America’s economy and markets. The Founders were well-acquainted with governments that did otherwise, say, for example, Great Britain, and did not wish for America to fall prey to the same wealth-destroying structures plaguing most every other country at the time. Hmmm. Where did we go wrong?! To be clear, the Austrian School of economics advocates for the central tenet of our nation’s founding – FREEDOM. It declares that economic liberty is not merely Liberty- it is the surest path to the enrichment of the entire society. On the contrary, it declares that government intervention, whether Communist, Socialist, or any color in between, is the surest path to impoverishment – for all. What about INFLATION? Inflation is the inevitable result of government intervention, any government intervention, into the economy. Why? Because when our government spends money (from taxes, selling Treasury Bills, or by printing dollars), it provides a net loss to the economy. By subtracting value from the economy, or by injecting unearned dollars into the economy, our economy ends up with less “product” and more dollars – hence the price of everything goes up. Inflation eats up the value of pensions and retirement savings Like radioactivity after the nuke, inflation eats up the value of pensions and retirement savings. The 10% “real” inflation rate we have now means that your grandmother’s likely going to be dining on cat food next year because the $500.00 per month she spends on groceries now will cost $550.00 next year; everything will cost more next year. If a person lives on a “fixed income,” say, like Social Security, (and without the COLA’s) inflation is a knife to the heart. We’ve come full circle. We know that inflation destroys an economy – and we know how – just as Lenin and Keynes predicted it would. We also know that paradoxically (for the Keynesian), any government intervention into an economy causes inflation, and at best provides a net loss for the economy. We also know that in the 1930’s, Keynes unwittingly sponsored the unholy union of politicians and economists that got us where we are today: Perpetually bending over and hoping the spanking won’t be so bad this time. Regardless, politicians, economists, and media cheerleaders are nowadays so brazen in their own self-interest as to mouth the words, “Stimulus,” “Jobs Bill,” “Bail-Out,” “QE II and “QE III,” as if these words actually meant something. Instead, these shills mislead the electorate and every sophist creature plays along. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing…society than…inflation Finally, we return to Keynes’ prophetic words: “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing…society than…inflation.” So, why would our political, academic and media elites want to cause inflation and destroy our Society? Take your pick: Greed (“it’s always about the money”), avarice, ambition, idealism, malice, “good intentions,” whatever. Regardless of the reason, the result is still the same: Destruction of our Society. Because of such phenomena, Lord Acton concluded that, in addition to power corrupting, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So, the next time you see someone smirk superciliously about the necessity of Quantitative Easing or of having the Fed lower interest rates below market levels, or a “Stimulus,” or even a “Jobs Bill,” simply smirk back and ask, “So you agree with Lenin, do you?” Inflation destroys economies, societies and freedoms. All governments are inflationary. Some government functions are necessary. Accordingly, some inflation is necessary – unavoidable – but not by much.