Dangerous Questions

A strange and unsettling, though likely predictable thought has risen within me these last few weeks. It has come as I have sat and observed, and most importantly analyzed our current economic crisis.

You see, I, like most other people, am an economic lay person. I hold no degree in the subject, indeed I have only taken one economics course in my entire formal education. Yet even with my limited understanding of economics I can understand economic theory relatively easily, and I was quite familiar with the competing notions of Keynes and Mises. Even when first made aware of the differences between the two schools of economic thought that seem to be the most primary in this country, I immediately concluded that Keynesianism consisted of facile rubbish and the Austrian school was vastly superior. But that was as far as it went.

Rudimentary as my awareness of these systems was, is and most likely shall continue to be, I still can observe both history and the present and conclude that one of these systems has been used far more than the other, particularly in regard to decisions within governments as to how to respond to economic crises.

It is a singular fact that the Great Depression and our current economic crisis both follow similar tracks. Both involved massive attempts at correcting an economic "problem" via an external actor (the government), both followed periods of popularized public policy along Keynesian economic grounds, and both resulted in the single greatest increases in government size, scope, public presence and economic control in history. Even the increases made by Abraham Lincoln do not compare with the dramatic inflation of the federal government during the Great Depression, and we are currently on track to exceed even that increase in our current economic situation.

I have observed, continually, economists coming seemingly from the very woodwork and fabric of our society all of whom have stated quite clearly and eloquently the reason for our current economic collapse, and the peculiar and apparently obvious pitfalls of the system which we all entrusted our livelihoods, homes, savings, and other means of survival to for years. These economists are seemingly everywhere, and each of them agrees with exactly what I concluded years ago based on a mere grasp of the basics of economic theory. Keynesian policy leads to economic recession.

From what I understand, it is apparent that there are certain facts and questions which are critical to any rational evaluation of this subject. The first is as follows:

"Would it be safe to say that our current economic crisis should have been predictable according to rational analysis of policy and precedent?"

According to numerous books and economists appearing on every television program from CNN to the Daily Show, the answer is a resounding yes.

The second would thus be:

"Should we infer then that it is human interference that has precipitated this situation?"

And it seems to be that the answer, particularly from the Austrian school, but also from the perspective of history and common sense is, again resoundingly, yes.

So we progress to the third question:

"Would it therefore be not only possible, but possibly even likely, that given the apparent intelligence of the economists who've brought us to this moment, that this economic disaster was not only predicted but planned?"

And this is the unsettling thought. You see, I find it inevitable that I compare myself to these doctors of economics, these masters of economics thought and theory who've been working hand in hand with our government for years, even decades, and I wonder. Another question occurs:

"What has been the most significant and lasting impact of every single recession of this scale or greater in history since Keynes?"

As already noted, the answer is a larger government. An expansion of government power, control, oversight, ownership, and interference has come out of each of these recessions.

Many economists, particularly those of the Austrian school will here veer off into an explanation of how socialism fails without fail, and of how the bedrock principles of socialism are defunct and corrupt. An explanation I do not feel is necessary, since I believe it misses the point. If these principles are in fact fallacious, it doesn't concern me. I am not an economist. I am a political scientist, and what concerns me is the possibility that this economic crisis, and those before it, are not about socialism or capitalism. IE that they are not about the ownership of capital or the freedom of the market, that they aren't about mere government interference in matters of money, but that they are about something more. It has become my belief that they are about one thing and one thing only, above all else, and of which the money issue is nothing more than a means to an end. Power. Power, and nothing else.

Upon mentioning these thoughts to a friend and economist, he argued to me that money is power. I disagree. I believe that fear is power, if indeed we're to understand power in the sense of being able to force someone to act, the ability to coerce and effect actions. Fear is a singularly powerful motivator, it warps reason and it inflates herd behavior. While there are certainly more effective, and even more positive motivators, each is more complicated, more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to maintain. Fear alone is cheap, easy and long lasting. Now, money and money matters, like hyper-inflation, certainly can and do cause fear. Such big words have ever boded ill for the poorly educated public. But they aren't the only sources of fear in an economic climate similar to our own. Imagine in addition to this abstract fear of the loss of value in money, the real and very close to home fear of losing one's home. What is the fear of less money to the fear of being homeless? Of lacking protection from the elements, of losing the shelter upon which you and your family depend for survival? A more primal fear is difficult to find, save perhaps in the fear of being unable to afford food, of being unable to eat. And this is the fear besetting those who are losing their jobs, or on the verge of losing them, or anywhere and in any situation wherein it is conceivable.

And I examine these sources of fear, and each time I see several factors present. First, I see that the source of the fear itself has always been economic policy enacted by the government. We approach hyper inflation because of monetary controls and the printing of trillions of dollars to support government subsidized work. We suffer from a housing collapse because of a federally created, even mandated, housing bubble, wherein interest rates were artificially lowered, and credit extended to those who simply had no right and no business receiving it. We are losing employment because government regulations of various industries and interference in the marketplace have caused a fleeing of capital for other countries, and simultaneously the stagnation of competition in key industries.

Next I see that the proposed solution to each problem follows the model which originated the problem itself, namely that the government step in to provide a solution. So, for example, in order to address the artificially created housing bubble, people turn to the government in their fear for a way to keep their homes. In an attempt to keep their jobs, workers in defunct and decrepit industries turn to the government to prop them up. General Motors is a perfect example, both of government regulated stagnation, and government propping up, to such a point that soon enough the government will own this corporation and many more. Indeed, after a massive bailout program in which the government furthered the problem of inflation, precisely to prevent any sort of government buy out of corporations and banks, the government will still be buying them out.

I find even without formal education in the subject that I've gotten quite a clear grasp of the situation, regardless of my lack, and I wonder, "If I, ignorant layman in economics that I am, could grasp this, why is it that so many doctorates in the subject could not, despite the fact that they should be assuredly well motivated to, if in fact one theory results in them getting much more money than the other?"

After all, is that not the point of any economic system? Is it not to provide for the general wealth and welfare of the community in which it is practiced? Whether it be capitalism, distributism, socialism, communism, or any other sort of system, the point of each is to provide for the prosperity of the people. So if it was obvious to me that this system would not provide for our prosperity, why wasn't it obvious to them?

This is the question that brought me to the most unsettling part of all. What if it was obvious to them? What if they understood that the system they advocated, the system they lobbied for, the system they sold to the public at large as the solution to all their troubles, all along was the schemata to a monumental economic meltdown? Why?

If the goal is not money, nor the success of society, what could it be? We already know. We already know, because we've not only seen the results of the system, and what it principally produces, we've already seen the intended fruit. The produce is fear, the fruit is the death of freedom.

I mentioned earlier that there have been plenty of economists who've known all along that this course of policy and action would result in a catastrophe of epic economic proportions. Likewise I have already brought up the various media I've seen them appear in. I would like to reference one now, in particular.

Jon Stewart's Daily Show is, for many in my age group, the only source of news they pay attention to. Yet it is a news spoof, it is fake news, for the point of satire and comedy. Jon himself though often takes an editorial approach in many instances, and with the down turn in the economy, has featured several guests who've advocated an Austrian economic policy. These guests are often authors of books highlighting problems in the system of American economics, and are brought in presumably to re-educate an audience who have been sold the lie of Keynesian policy for most, if not all, of their short lives. Yet in each and every instance I've observed, Stewart has ended his interviews with these authors with the question, "what do you think we can do to fix this," or some variant thereof. The irony, of course, being that these authors were advocating that we do nothing to fix this. The entire point was that attempting to "fix" these situations is how we get into worse situations in the first place, that regulation and interference cause problems, they don't solve them.

Behold the subtle brilliance. With each interview of leading economists demonstrating the falsity of our system of interference, instead of having their ideas heard in fair forum and convincing the general public, particularly the younger generations who will be largely left with the debts and responsibilities, not to mention the loss of liberty, incurred by our current government's actions, the audience is having it reaffirmed each time that something must be done, that some external actor must step in to effect change. Each interview props up the idea that we must act to fix the recession, regardless of whatever ideas came up in the interview to challenge this notion. And if this is the satirical, spoofing news program, what of the real news?

Can anyone imagine a means of artificially creating a more lasting and powerful provocation of fear in this country, or anywhere else, save through some dramatic and violent act, particularly one involving a weapon of mass destruction?

What if our entire economic climate has been planned as part of an on-going attempt by the government to strip liberty from the people? What if each of these terrible recessions was calculated and produced by people who knew very well that the system they were employing as an economic foundation would result in an economic collapse? And what if the single and solitary goal of this intended collapse was to bring the people to such a state of fear and panic that they'd surrender almost anything for the safety and security they'd known via the artificial inflation of the economy that this system had created prior to its collapse?

Forgive my seeming lapse in Romanticism. I am a student of ironies, and of GK Chesterton, and Mr. Chesterton had certain ideas about the nature of democracy and Romance that I believe are well served in posting this. If indeed we have some sort of practical and truthful understanding of humanity in the doctrine of the Fall and the assurance that Mankind is not perfect, then it stands to reason that we should never truly trust those we elect to govern. We should exist in a state of constant vigilance, we should be restless and watchful. We should be ever prepared for the revolution of orthodoxy, the return to the first principles, the return to tradition and democracy and the truest freedom, that freedom of the will.

Regards,

Formative Influences

So I just embarked on a massive Calvin and Hobbes binge, and I realized that, being the "instinctive Romantic" that I am, Calvin and Hobbes was probably intrinsic to the formation of my Romantic world-view. I spent a huge portion of my childhood (and by huge I mean multiple summers and weekends, the only part of childhood that counts) reading Calvin and Hobbes. And I expect Calvin and Hobbes' deep philosophical musings juxtaposed to the shortcomings of their reality imbued me with the very same tendencies. I, like Calvin, thought too much.

I still do.

But as the final strip of the series illustrates, Calvin and Hobbes as a stripe had he very essence of Romanticism buried within. I can't depict it here, unauthorized replications of Watterson's work being illegal without permission, which I don't have, but I'm sure you can find it somehow. All I shall say is that now, even as I was 10 years ago and more, it's still a magical world.

Art

So I've decided to teach myself to paint, acrylic to start, maybe oil and water colors later. I'm looking forward to actually being able to do some. So far I have a decent set of brushes and some canvas and a palette, but my paint supply is meager. I also need some practice just painting, learning the ways of the paint, haha. I've got lots of ideas on what to paint, of course, but I'm always interested in hearing more, so if anyone's reading this, let's hear 'em!

"Pilgrim"

Wandering
across the Earth
marching
far and wide

Man alone
with violent heart
stands upright
and cannot rest

My entire life
I've sought
a home and hearth
to call my own

Yet always known
deep within
that home is where
we all must end

Each day
a journey
each night
without rest

Looking up
to Heaven
and back down
to Earth

I know at last
why my heart so aches
life with death
for the sake of love