Welfare You Cannot See

Supposed you owned a bakery and a man from the government came by and and told you that from now on the government was going to cover the cost of inventory for you and all of the bakers in the country. All you had to do is make the bread and pastries and pay other normal costs of doing business. Your profits would sky rocket. In a short time, you might begin to believe that it was good for the rest of the country to get free flour from the government. But, in fact the country would produce far too many baked goods which would be a big misallocation of the country’s resources.
Money is the inventory that banks carry. In a free market setting, banks have to buy their inventory by paying people enough interest to encourage them to save. In the US today, banks get from the government what is very close to free money. Government gives banks their inventory for very close to nothing. Far more money is in circulation than is necessary for conducting the country’s business. Excess money flows into the financial sector causing bubbles in first one asset class and then another. Excess money also finances government initiatives such as that of enhancing stock prices. Great effort goes toward convincing you the taxpayer that it is good for everyone if government covers the major cost banks have in doing business. What looks like well meaning central economic planning comes down to taking money out of your pockets and sending it in the direction of others who you have been trained to perceive as your role models. Most new welfare is in the form just described and is that says out of your radar. Free money to banks is actually a greater burden on you than more visible expenditures where benefits are direct, such as welfare and food stamps.

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.