Dear Angry Person, I can tell that you’re angry at me again. I think I understand your complaint, though I have trouble understanding why this specific issue is upsetting you on this specific day. But based on past experience, asking for clarification will only make you angrier, without helping me avoid your future anger. As usual, then, I plan to appease you.
Tag: ignorance
A Brief Response To The Critique That Capitalism Is A “Zero-Sum” Game
“A zero-sum game is a game where if the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games since the sum of amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others.” So does capitalism fit this definition?
The Assumption of Ignorance
Assuming that the world is ignorant brings society down. We’ve begun talking, teaching, and working to the lowest common denominator. We assume that people need to be taught, led, coddled, and motivated. When you presume that other people are ignorant, you do both yourself and them a disservice. You create more work for yourself and increase the dependency of others on you. You become the hub at the center of a wheel, and the spokes don’t know how to think independently because they’ve been brought up in a system where there is always someone else telling them what they need to know.
Imports Create Jobs and Trade Deficits Don’t Matter
It is no good objection to reply that America’s current-account (or “trade”) deficit means that foreigners don’t buy from us as much as we buy from foreigners. First, the investments in America made by foreigners (and that increase the U.S. trade deficit) also typically involve demand for U.S. inputs, including workers. When, for example, Ikea builds a store in Dale City, Virginia, American workers and other input suppliers are employed in that project.
The Profound Value of Market Values
Even though economists, like others, don’t know the objective value of anything, they do know that as long as people voluntarily enter market arrangements, all parties to each transaction expect that the subjective value they will receive as benefits will exceed the subjective value they bear as costs. Greater subjective values for all is the result. And any coercive intrusion that forcibly moves the quantity exchanged away from what individuals would voluntarily choose destroys joint gains to participants, making the “solutions” offered by economists’ Wilde-eyed critics worse than the supposed problems used to justify them.
Tacit Submission
Do you and I willingly give up our freedom and property for the benefits of living in these United States? Do we tacitly consent to oppression by not moving to another country? Do we tacitly consent to the authority of our governments by not rebelling, by not throwing the tea into Boston harbor? John Locke and many today say “yes”; we tacitly accept the State by paying our taxes, by receiving its benefits (such as property protection!), and by not emigrating. They say we acquiesce in an implicit contract in which we give up freedom or accept compulsion in exchange for other things that we value. This view is dead wrong.
The Man Behind the Curtain
Although the Grateful Dead told us that “every silver lining’s got a touch of grey” (lyric by Robert Hunter), it’s my nature to look for one anyway. At the risk of being accused of gross naivete, I’d like to hope that the Trump presidency (I still can’t believe I have to type those words) will once and for all sour people on government and politics.
No Such Thing as “International” Economics
I’ve come to the conclusion that the world would be better off had there never been the sub-discipline within economics of “international economics” (or, alternatively, of “international trade” and “international finance”). The economics profession likely also would be better off without such a sub-discipline.
Voluntaryists are Moral Agents, not Soothsayers
As a Voluntaryist, I do not claim to know how society will work without the state. I am not a central planner, fortuneteller, oracle, or soothsayer. The anarchist stance is only proclaiming that nobody has the moral right to rule and that my life is not owned by any politician or state. I live my life of my own accord and accept the consequences of my actions.
Government: Always a Bad Deal
When the average, well-trained statist says, “I’m proud to pay my taxes, because I like to have roads!” they are demonstrating not only a serious degree of Stockholm Syndrome (it’s pretty stupid to be “proud” of being forced to buy a product, even if the product is good), but they are also demonstrating profound economic ignorance.