One may look at the “American experiment” as one that
during the 20th Century strove to increase the gross domestic
product and to distribute it evenly. That seemed to be the trend early in the
Century. Now, however, the gap between the rich and the poor is obviously
widening; and many observers have agreed that widening of the gap is rampant.
The late 19th Century saw the weakness and
danger of unbridled capitalism. Huge strikes became violent. Farmers went out
of business because of opportunistic entrepreneurs who managed the markets to
their advantage. Human suffering was immense. Railroads took advantage their
monopoly of the money supply to buy up large tracts of land, which they sold at
exorbitant profit. Society was shaken by the blatant inequality in our society.
Socialism and anarchy were in the air among our people.
But…is it time to throw out the old, tried and true
entrepreneurial system? Liberals are very upset at the growing inequalities in
our culture. They want EQUALITY! But…the
liberal view of equality is equality of outcomes. Everyone must be equal, i.e.,
equal incomes, equal education, equal health care, etc., etc. Conservatives,
also, long for equality; but they want equality of opportunity, not necessarily
equality of outcomes. The conservative belief is that everyone should have an
opportunity to better himself, to work for the profit of himself and for his
family.
It is a biological fact that not everyone is born equal.
We each have characteristics that outshine or that do not match up with the
characteristics of others. Those differences are the things that make for
social inequality in outcome. Founding Father James Madison asserted in
Federalist Paper #10 that one of the most important functions of governments
was to protect individuals’ unequal ability to acquire property. He saw
inequality as a desirable feature of society. Inequality has allowed businesses
and other enterprises to outperform other enterprises and produce better
things. This has been done by the mechanism of free competition.
We have before us, bright examples of the
equality-inequality argument. Since the Reagan-Thatcher administrations in the
late 1970’s and early 1980’s inequality has been one of the top agenda items
pursued by market-oriented policy makers and has been seen in the privatization
of state-owned enterprises. This has been done in the name of economic
efficiency. That effort has been fiercely resisted by the Left and is still
being done by the Obama administration in its money redistribution activities.
The final result of this administrative monetary/financial activity has been
mixed. It seems to help our American lifestyle, e.g., in pulling our poorest
out of their poverty; but sometimes, it does not help.
The examples we have seen of failures of collectivization
and redistribution attempts are very scary.
In the former USSR and China, the governments forced millions of
unrelated peasants into collective farms. By breaking the link between
individual effort and reward, collectivization undermined the incentives to
work, leading to mass famines in Russia and China, and severely reduced
agricultural productivity. In the former USSR, the 4% of land that remained
privately owned accounted for almost one-quarter of total agricultural output.
In China, beginning in 1978, collective farms were disbanded; and agricultural
output doubled in the space of just four years. Traditional English villages of
the 18th and early 19th Centuries practiced communal
ownership of grazing land in which the grazing land was shared by the members
of the village. This system worked so badly that overgrazing and poor land
management practically destroyed efficient farming. The solution was to
privatize the grazing land; and with that change, farmers worked to care for the
pastures and keep overgrazing down—production increased apace.
Excessive government regulation and taxation are driving our American system of free enterprise and competitive business into the ground. We need a government that will allow the free exercise of business, medicine, banking, etc. with less regulation. Our faltering economy and the growing numbers of Americans absent from the work force testify that an over-powerful central government is not doing a good job. Sure, we need some regulation in business, banking, and other things; but we have reached and passed the point where big government is beneficial.
No comments:
Post a Comment