What about those politically driven counterfactual arguments
that make the assertion that without government intervention all would have been lost?
If Markets fail, then governments fail too. However,
politicos enjoy framing positive externalities of government intervention
without ever mentioning the negative externalities of government intervention [also
known as cascading unintended consequences]. The politico argument is based on
the “counterfactual”. That is, the politico frames the abstract and unknown outcomes
that surely included dire consequences vs. politicos stepping into the breach
via intervention and creating wonderful outcomes. Stated alternatively, the
politico compares the first stages of intervention outcomes with the unknown
non-intervention outcome –or- politically framed opinion based reality is
compared with politically framed opinion of non-reality.
Since politicos enjoy comparing their supposed grand
accomplishments [positive externalities only] with non-reality, what if one
went one step further and out counterfactual-ed the politico? That is, what if
one went back to April 15th 1912 and wiped the slate clean of income
tax, the Federal Reserve and the 1930’s proposition of politicos manipulating
economic levers to achieve supposed outcomes?
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the
income tax a permanent in the U.S. tax system. Prior to the 16th
Amendment the U.S. tax system was basically a tariff on imported goods [tariffs
not being a wonderful world in and of itself]. The tariff tax revenue funded a
government of very limited size and scope. (1)
Also during 1913 The Federal Reserve Act was passed. (2)
“In one respect the System [the Fed] has remained completely
consistent throughout. It blames all problems on external influences beyond its
control and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences. It thereby
continues to promote the myth that the private economy is unstable, while its
behavior continues to document the reality that government is today the major
source of economic instability.” - Milton and Rose Friedman (3)
During The Great Depression John Maynard Keynes advocated
intervention into the economy by politicos. That is, that politicos should
manipulate the economic levels and intervene into the free market to create
outcomes:
“Keynes was exceedingly effective in persuading a broad
group—economists, policymakers, government officials, and interested
citizens—of the two concepts implicit in his letter to Hayek: first, the public
interest concept of government; second, the benevolent dictatorship concept
that all will be well if only good men are in power. Clearly, Keynes’s
agreement with “virtually the whole” of the Road to Serfdom did not extend to
the chapter titled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”
Keynes believed that economists (and others) could best
contribute to the improvement of society by investigating how to manipulate the
levers actually or potentially under control of the political authorities so as
to achieve desirable ends, and then persuading benevolent civil servants and
elected officials to follow their advice. The role of voters is to elect
persons with the right moral values to office and then let them run the
country.” - Milton Friedman (4) (5)
Hence one can surely go back to 1912 and create
the ultimate counterfactual world of no income tax, free banking, and an
economy based on economics rather than politics. What is to say this counterfactual
world is not much more free and prosperous than the reality of politically
driven taxation, politically driven banking, and politically driven economy?
The point being that politically framed counterfactual
arguments that without government intervention outcomes would have been world-ending
is political dupery of the first degree. Any counter-factual argument can be
created to support or deny the outcomes.
Notes:
(1)
History of the Income Tax in the United States
(2) Federal Reserve Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
(3) Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman
(4) Milton Friedman, Richmond Federal Reserve Economic
Quarterly, volume 83/2 spring 1997.
(5) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
No comments:
Post a Comment