Monday, March 26, 2012

The Vampire Economy and the Market


By Ben O’Neill

1. Authoritarian Capitalism (Fascism) and Liberal Capitalism (the Free Market)

What is sometimes referred to as "authoritarian capitalism," or fascism, is in fact a variety of statism, specifically socialism, the system of political economy in which the prerogatives of ownership over the means of production and distribution are vested in the state. Under the fascist economic system, private capitalists are nominally regarded as the owners of the means of production, meaning that they hold property titles to these assets and are referred to as "owners" of these assets. However, this so-called ownership is merely illusory. The actual prerogatives of ownership are vested, not in the private capitalist, but in the state and its bureaucracy. It is the state that tells the private capitalist how he must use "his" property, under the threat of confiscation or even imprisonment. In the words of economist Ludwig von Mises, it is "socialism in the outward guise of capitalism."

This is a very different political-economic system from "liberal capitalism," also known as "free-market capitalism." Free-market capitalism is an authentically capitalist system, in which the prerogatives of ownership over the means of production are vested in private citizens, not in the state. Under this system, the means of production are genuinely privately owned, and the private-property owner holds, not just a property title, but, more importantly, the actual prerogatives of ownership and ultimate control. In the system of free-market capitalism, the private-property owner is regarded as having property rights (i.e., an enforceable moral claim to the prerogatives of ownership) that must be respected by all others, including the state and its functionaries.

In their purest forms, these two systems of political economy are fundamentally different in kind; in fact, they are polar opposites. However,… (Read more)

Source: Mises.org

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Oil Companies: $7,610 a minute


As gas prices rise, oil companies just watch their profits increase. And yet, they're still subsidized by Congress to the tune of $4 billion a year.

That's about $7,610 every minute.

To learn more about why gas prices are on the rise and President Obama's strategy to take control of our energy future and avoid gas spike prices in the future, check out our new infographic.

Editor’s Note: Providing subsidies to industry is a cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s agenda. All of a sudden, CONGRESS is to blame for subsidies to infamous companies like British Petroleum and the failed Solyndra. Despite distancing himself from this corporate welfare, all of this happened under President Obama’s watch and in part under his guidance

Friday, March 9, 2012

STAR WARS and the Austrian School: Trade Routes (Part 1)


Originally published by Young Americans For Liberty

Part I: The Great Hyperspace War

For those knowledgeable nerds who are well-versed in Star Wars expanded universe history (such as your author), they would be familiar with the lore of the Great Hyperspace War.  Originally appearing in the Tales of the Jedi comic book series and being mentioned throughout the Knights of the Old Republic game, this particular conflict is part of ancient Star Wars history, having been fought five thousand years before the time of Luke Skywalker.

This conflict began when some gold diggers waist-deep in debt decided to try their luck at finding new paths for hyperspace travel that could become lucrative trade routes and solve their financial woes.  What originally happened was that, after dialing random coordinates and hoping to get lucky, the traveling pair of get-rich-quick schemers accidentally stumbled upon the Sith planet of Korriban and the entire Sith Empire, previously ignorant of the existence of the Galactic Republic and vice versa.

This immediately led to the Sith using the newly-discovered hyperspace route (and subsequently discovered coordinates) to attack Republic worlds.  For the rest of the war, the Republic and the Sith Empire struggled for domination of the hyperspace routes while trying to conquer each other’s’ worlds for imperial expansion.  The Republic eventually won, resulting in the near-annhilation of the Sith Empire and the exile of the Sith Lord Naga Sadow to the planet Yavin 4, but this would only be one in a series of wars between the Republic with its light-side Jedi and the Sith with their dark Jedi.

These episodes are not unlike ancient history here on earth.  The Punic Wars, fought between the Greek Carthaginians and the Romans between 264 and 146 BC (nearly one hundred and twenty years!) were waged specifically for land holdings, particularly islands in the Mediterranean, and for control of waterways for trade routes.  Furthermore, long before Rome fought Carthage, the Trojan War became the stuff of legends.  While mythology romanticizes the war to have been fought over a beautiful woman, historians and archaeologists today agree that the most likely cause for the war would have been trade routes.

Austrian economists know that all such calamity and bloodshed could have been avoided through economic cooperation rather than isolationism.  Just because countries or empires trade with each other does not guarantee that they don’t adopt isolationist measures.  Whether it’s the Greeks battling the Romans or the British battling the French, it seems impossible for nations to simply share the waterways.  After all, 75% of planet Earth is covered by ocean, and there’s enough water on the well-traveled trade routes for ships not to crash into each other.  Still, with the existence of empires comes the need for as much prestige and as many displays of dominance as possible.  The “chosen” empire must have full control of the trade routes and take the liberty to tax any vessel and cargo, leaving little if any market competition.

Even when not trying to dominate a market competitor militarily, international competitors still try to dominate the market through protectionist laws, tariffs, and other taxes.  Unfortunately, such a travesty is all too common today.  In order to “protect” American industry, big businesses lobby the federal government to set high tariffs and fees on imported goods.  This invariably makes the price of imported goods shoot sky high, since the foreign producers now have to pay the exorbitant tax on top of the cost of shipping their products internationally.  While this maintains the illusion of protecting the American economy, it causes more harm than good.  Because the market has been violated by protectionist interventionism, prices are raised artificially (but the higher cost for goods and services is all too real for the poor consumer whose purchasing power is shrinking).  These high prices naturally serve as false indicators in the market and cause domestic producers to raise their prices as such.

These phony prices in no way indicate the actual cost of producing the goods, the way a free market would allow, and manipulating the prices for protectionist purposes harms consumers by making goods more expensive.  The quality of products also drops because domestic producers no longer have to constantly compete with their foreign competitors.  In the end, the American consumer is paying more money for lower quality goods, not necessarily because of some “greedy capitalist” but because government intervention enabled that greed.  The free market is about competition and survival of the fittest, in order to provide the consumer with the best quality product for the lowest possible price.  Author Kel Kelly writes in his book The Case for Legalizing Capitalism, “Don’t buy American, buy what’s best…”:

    Intentionally buying only American goods when one would otherwise choose foreign products keeps American workers employed—temporarily—in jobs where they are producing goods which should be produced by other countries, while their labor would be more beneficial in another line of work. Because of this, there are fewer total goods produced and lower real salaries for both the laborers and the consumers.

To elaborate on Kelly’s point, consumers tend to buy more expensive and lower quality products far less often.  This leads to an overall decline in revenue for producers, causing them either to go under, or to prevent going under by having to cut their budget through cutting all workers’ hours or by eliminating jobs (in which labor is being wasted when other countries should be producing those items so that local labor can better produce other items).

For those less-than-diehard Star Wars fans who insist that anything not in the six movies doesn’t count, they can witness this political-economic travesty of protectionism in Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

Continued in Part II: The Invasion of Naboo

Image by the author. Background taken from a NASA photo which is in the public domain.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The Blessing of a Strong Currency

By David Howden and Brenna Sanae Kajikawa
To hear some commentators talk, one would think that America's trade-deficit woes would be miraculously erased with a swift devaluation. A too highly valued greenback makes imports "too cheap" and incentivizes Americans to buy from their foreign competitors. The corollary is that the expensive dollar is making American exporters unattractive to the rest of the world. The result is a trade deficit, whereby Americans buy more imports than they export each year, a phenomenon that seems to have gotten especially worse since the early 1970s.
Yet two effects of the standard relationship between a weak currency and a country's economic health bear commenting on. First, is it true that a weakened exchange rate makes one's exports cheaper? Second, are there harmful secondary effects from pursuing such a weak-currency policy? Let us address both points in turn, using Japan and the yen as an example.
A strong currency is typically seen as a double-edged sword. While most people enjoy looking at their bank statement and seeing lots of money, they only do so if that money means something. Strong currencies enable money holders to enjoy more goods that are imported — trips to foreign lands, or exotic electronics become more affordable. The flip side is that the producers of these goods — the foreigners with the relatively strengthening currency — are typically viewed as being at a cost disadvantage.
Some anecdotal evidence from Japan… (Read more)
Source: Mises.org