When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies, and there is nothing to fear, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. – Plato
Posted by Mr. Noel in Coercion, Corruption, Freedom, Government, Historical on February 16, 2010
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. – Plato, 347 B.C.
FDR and Crisis
by Karen De Coster
Robert Higgs, in his masterful 1987 book Crisis and Leviathan, asserts the facts so precisely: “the institutional revolution of the 1930′s depended crucially on the existence of national emergency, a condition that was partly real, partly contrived, enormously exploited for political purposes.”
The thesis of Crisis and Leviathan elucidates the explanations for the growth of government. That is, government creates crisis or exacerbates an already existing crisis that brings forth a shift in the ideology of the masses. The ideology of the masses, after all, tends to follow opinions conveyed by government leaders. This shift in ideology tends toward “Nannyism,” or the notion that extensions of government power are both necessary and legitimate to maintain order and economic stability. Hence, under the guise of crisis, the power grabs look less menacing to the masses. Therefore, big government has succeeded in getting bigger at the expense of individual liberties and in spite of Constitutional limitations.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt presided over two of the most austere crises in American history – the Great Depression and the Second World War. FDR, more than any other American president before him, unjustly exploited the country’s economic crisis to put his death-grip on the Constitution and those whom it was intended to serve.
Economy of Despair
An economic crisis loomed large just prior to FDR taking his oath of office in March of 1933. State governments – nationwide – were declaring bank holidays to prevent runs on the banks, and Roosevelt, just days after taking office, initiated a national banking holiday under the semblance of “national emergency”. This action suspended all banking transactions and created the opportunity for FDR to follow-up with the Gold Reserve Act, which meant the demise of the gold standard, and ultimately, a bonanza of runaway inflation for big government.
A result of this action was the prohibition of the private ownership of gold, except for jewelry and certain commercial/industrial uses. The government reneged on any and all promises to pay out gold, and also forbade private contractual commitments to pay in gold. It was thievery on a grand scale. Roosevelt’s first fireside chat resulted from this banking predicament, as he assured the public – in his charming aloofness – that he could lead a nation through this drama intact. Washington bureaucrats, with FDR in command, had successfully hoarded gold, devalued the dollar, and created a cry from the public for even more government intervention.
The Two “Deals”
Creating “emergency” became the stratagem for Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” as he took the country from one zero hour to the next. The first New Deal addressed the crises blamed on the Hoover administration: economic isolation, monopolies run amok, unemployment, and problems regulating competition. Roosevelt urged that the federal government was the only solution to these crises, and only his New Deal legislation could save the country.
The labor crisis, assured FDR, could be solved if the government could put more people to work and raise the prices of products and services. After all, as Tom DiLorenzo points out in Reassessing the Presidency, the crisis presented by Roosevelt was “a Depression caused by low wages and prices”, requiring the “obvious solution of government-mandated price and wage increases”. How to do that? First, under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), the National Recovery Administration was set into motion to thwart the impending crisis. This managerial-state nightmare allowed every industry to be organized into a “Code Authority” or federally-managed type of cooperative. Under this, the business work week would be shortened and hours of labor would be reduced to better disperse employment and drive down production output. Then, a minimum wage was set, as well as minimum prices.
The National Recovery Administration, in effect, cartelized every American industry and regulated distribution, production, prices, wages, and hours worked. Effectively, Roosevelt’s power grabs had managed to socialize American business, for the market system was almost entirely under government authority. Higgs tells us:
The industrial recovery act emerged from a grand compromise. The most prominent parties included businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking government sponsorship and protection of their organizational activities and collective bargaining, do-gooders concerned about working conditions and child labor, and proponents of massive governmental spending for public works.
All of the above were accomplished by a president who alleged that his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, had allowed government to grow to such absurd proportions, that it was he who would have to cut it down in size. Truth is, Hoover’s big government was dwarfed by Roosevelt’s bloated tyranny.
Then, government public works programs would invade the scene, supplying even more jobs in the name of forestry, flood control, soil protection, and general infrastructure. American workers welcomed these measures. After all, a fragile population craves the safety net of big government when they are convinced that their way of life is threatened, which was the implied effect of the Depression era. No jobs meant a poor standard of living. New jobs, even government jobs created at the expense of sound economics, were welcomed with open arms. The populace was timorous, and they believed their standard of living to be in jeopardy. The crisis mentality had successfully wormed its way into the American psyche.
Roosevelt went for the throat during his Second New Deal. Here, what may be considered to be one the most corrupt government programs ever, the Social Security Act, was forged. Essentially a fund to pay pensions, it doubled as a Treasury reserve fund for the purpose of lending for spending. Author John T. Flynn explains:
The plan was to make the payroll tax big enough to pay the benefits, plus enough more to create a so-called reserve of $47,000,000,000 in 40 years. It was given the fraudulent name of Old-Age Reserve Fund. The Security Board would collect the taxes each year, use a small part of it to pay the pensions and put the rest in the “Fund”. That is, it would lend it to the Treasury and the Treasury would then spend it for any purpose it had in mind. At the end of 40 years, Roosevelt was told, this money could be used to pay off the national debt.
Security was the crisis, and old-age was the hook. And what better way to ensure security than to guarantee monetary payment from an “insurance” fund beyond the age of 65? Roosevelt clearly had endeared himself to a generation that was being ravaged by Depression and unemployment. The freedom-for-security trade-off seemed a good deal at the time. Still and all, Roosevelt’s Nipple-in-the-Sky offering had assured his constituency of prolonged government intervention on the basis of need, and unfailing indemnity against any and all hardship. What more could the people ask for?
The populace wanted jobs, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) promised jobs. In April of 1935, the Roosevelt régime put this program into motion, one that employed over eight million people on the dole of the national government. Public projects were undertaken on everything from building bridges and recording music to establishing federal writing projects and theatre projects. With a twenty-percent unemployment rate looming at the time, the masses were jobless and restless, and were unwilling to turn down handouts of government jobs and makeshift careers. FDR had successfully entrapped the populace behind a wall of fear and vulnerability; they had become disciples of the New Deal dominion, embracing government appropriations beyond that which had ever been seen before. They were trapped and begging.
Nonetheless, not everybody had to beg for work. Those who had jobs met up with the “security” of Roosevelt’s National Labor Relations Act, which empowered labor union monstrosities using coercion and extortion to collectively bargain, and essentially gave unions the license for violence under the guise of “right to organize”. This kind of empowerment had the appearance of providing for the well-being of the common worker, however, it was merely a ploy to further centralize and expand government control over industry, gain the favors of big business, and empower a leading democratic political force. Only government decree could put such power into the hands of an elite few. And only government can create such a monopoly on labor. The heavily appeased unions became a powerful political force and permanent fixture in perpetual support for the Democratic Party, and remains so to this day. The labor unions, after all, had been on the decline – in terms of both membership and might – prior to Roosevelt’s political gratuities. FDR had managed to stimulate this declining movement and turn the unions into a useful and influential force.
Conclusion
As a whole, Roosevelt’s fabricated crises – banking, labor, wellness, old-age subsistence – gave birth to a centralized, planned economy, one that began an irreversible encroachment on individual livelihood. The masses fully consented to government usurpation while falling under the spell of “crisis”. Government acted in ways that, typically, without a crisis hanging overhead, it could not get away with. Even when each crisis was over, we were left with remnants of this big government that weren’t there before the crisis. Robert Higgs refers to this as the “ratcheting effect”. We ratchet back some of the “new” big government usurpation, but keep the majority of it long after the bogus “crisis” is over. Each ratchet leaves us with more government and less freedom.
Mainstream historians, journalists, and commentators often speak of the vast legacy left behind by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In reality, the only legacy left behind by this tyrant is the residuum of his departure from the gold standard, which gave us a managed currency system producing massive inflation and destructive business cycles; gigantic welfare state programs for the aged and for the unwilling; sanctioned malignancy of unionism; collectivization of industry; unconstitutional shift of unmitigated authority to a hand-assembled judicial branch; and a public takeover of formerly private business endeavors. And he used economic depression – and later, war – as the crises that required his heavy hand.
The crisis-mongering Roosevelt, like Lincoln and Wilson before him, aided in paving the way for the czarism that was to permeate our modern executive branch of government.
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
Posted by Mr. Noel in Economics, Government on February 11, 2010
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. – Edward Langley
More Government Equals Fewer Jobs
by Peter Schiff
With today’s unexpected decline in December payrolls, the cry for more job-related stimulus will grow even louder. But the sad truth is that any new stimulus or jobs bills will ultimately swell the ranks of the unemployed, thereby raising calls for an even bigger federal effort. If we are not careful, government regulations, subsidies, and spending, all designed to fight unemployment, could push the labor market into a death spiral.
Regulation acts like a tax on job creation. By subjecting employers to all sorts of extra expenses when they hire people, regulations increase the cost of employment far beyond the wages employers actually pay their workers. In fact, some regulations are specifically tied to the number of workers employed. This provides some employers with a strong incentive to stay small and not hire.
The minimum wage law, which is really just a very visible workplace regulation, actually makes it illegal for employers to hire certain individuals and destroys entire categories of jobs. For instance, faced with high labor costs, some restaurants will avoid hiring dishwashers by switching to plastic utensils and paper plates. On a larger scale, factories may decide to switch to robotic assembly lines if human labor gets too expensive.
Other types of regulations, such as those that prohibit discrimination, create incentives for employers not to hire individuals that fall within the protected class. This is the result of potential litigation costs that may result from wrongful termination lawsuits. In other words, the more expensive government makes it to fire workers, the less likely they are to hire them in the first place.
Subsidies produce the opposite effect of regulation, but sometimes the results can be just as harmful. Government subsidies divert resources towards politically favored activities, resulting in more jobs in areas such as health care and education, but fewer jobs in other sectors such as manufacturing. The net effect of this transfer is to diminish the productive capacity and efficiency of the economy, which lowers real economic growth and diminishes employment opportunities.
Although not as visible as regulations and subsidies, government spending also plays a large role in job destruction. The more money government spends, the more resources it drains from the private sector. The fiscal 2011 budget proposed by President Obama contains $3.8 trillion in federal spending. Think of government as a cancer feeding off the private sector. The larger it grows, the more jobs it kills. Unfortunately, most politicians follow the misguided advice of economist John Maynard Keynes, who advocated government spending as a means of job creation. In reality, government spending merely results in government jobs replacing more efficient private sector jobs.
Some economists point to taxes as the primary job killer, and argue that lower taxes will boost employment. While I have sympathy for this view, it misses the larger issue that the burden of government is not what it taxes but what it spends. The proposed fiscal 2011 federal budget contains “only” 2.4 trillion of taxes. The remaining 1.4 trillion of spending is borrowed (incredibly, for every dollar the government collects in taxes, it now spends almost $1.60). I would argue that a dollar borrowed kills more jobs than a dollar taxed. Therefore, cutting taxes and borrowing the shortfall kills more jobs then it creates. This is true because jobs require capital and government borrowing more directly crowds out private capital investment than taxes do.
In the end, I fully expect the government to directly provide make-work jobs to the armies of the unemployed. This will accelerate the pace of private sector job destruction and make our economy even less productive than it is today. This means that while the government may be able to provide people with jobs, the wages they pay will provide little in the way of purchasing power. In the end, we will become a nation of government employees, with plenty of work but little to show for it.
from: lewrockwell.com
There’s never been a good government.
Posted by Mr. Noel in Coercion, Corruption, Freedom, Government on December 12, 2009
There’s never been a good government. – Emma Goldman
The Myth of Good Government
Mises Daily: Monday, November 17, 2008 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
One of the great and most persistent errors of classical liberals is to believe in “good government,” a government that does “what it is supposed to do.”
There is nothing the state can do, and which society needs done, that cannot be done far better by the market. Another point that is just as telling: no state empowered to do what is supposedly necessary will restrain itself to those things. It will expand as much as public opinion will tolerate.
Sometimes the point is easier to see when looking at foreign governments, such as the tragic case of China. The government is embarking on an explosive venture to dump $586 billion into “infrastructure” over two years. The reason is the classic Keynesian excuse: the spending is needed to stimulate investment. Never mind that this trick has never worked in all of human history. This is instead a grand plan to loot the private sector on behalf of the Communist Party, which will then spend the money bolstering its power.
No country knows more about the failures of this type of central planning than China. Every form of collectivism has been tried out on these poor souls, and tens of millions lost their lives in the course of Mao’s insane collectivist experiments. That this new plan is being enacted in the name of Lord Keynes rather than Karl Marx is irrelevant. The effects are the same: expand power and reduce liberty.
China’s recovery from communism is one of the most inspiring stories in the history of economic development. The country went from being a suffering and impoverished land of catastrophe to being modernized in just 15 years. The state shrunk in scope nearly by default as the private sector grew and grew. This wasn’t the plan. It was the de facto result of the new tolerance of free economic activity. The state went into protective mode to keep its power, and did nothing to stop the swell of private enterprise. The result was glorious.
Keep in mind this critical point: China’s restoration as a civilized society came about not due to some central plan, but by its absence. The fact that the state did not intervene led to prosperity. Again, it wasn’t a policy or a constitution or a law that made the difference. There was no switch from a communist-style government to a night-watchman state. Because the state abandoned its posts under public opposition and contempt, society could flourish.
But the state never went away. It’s just that its depredations have been spotty and unpredictable. Had history taken a better course, the central state would have melted away completely, and law would have devolved to the most local levels. Sadly for the Chinese, the state persisted in its old structure, even as the private sector grew and grew. The state still had its hand in the large industries such as steel and energy, and, of course, it controlled the banking sector.
“China’s restoration as a civilized society came about not due to some central plan, but by its absence.”
The government never became good (an impossibility). It was and is bad. It was just less bad than in the past, because it did less. But all states lie in wait for a crisis. The earthquake in the southwest provided one great excuse for intervention. There is no greater excuse for state expansion than an economic crisis—except perhaps war. Chinese officials can count on support from Western “experts” here, and the thoroughly disgusting US response to our own economic downturn has provided an awful model for the world. Think of it: the Communist Party in China is now citing the United States as the main reason for its plot to loot the private sector and bolster its own power at the expense of the country.
So much for being a beacon of liberty in a dark world! Instead, the United States is helping to shut out the lights and bolster decrepit despotisms. This is surely one of the great ironies of the current political moment. Instead of teaching the world about liberty, the United States’ newly empowered unitary executive is christening various forms of dictatorship.
There can be no question that China’s spending will not improve economic growth. It will instead extract $586 billion from the private sector and spend on political priorities. Never forget that no government has wealth of its own to spend. The money has to come from taxation, monetary inflation, or debt expansion that must be paid later. And government’s spending choices will always be uneconomic relative to how society would use that wealth. That is to say, the money will be wasted.
But won’t the spending spur investment? It can create local boomlets, but they will be temporary. To the extent that the new spending causes a spending response from investors and consumers, this is more evidence of an uneconomic use of scarce resources. If the money is used to prop up failing companies, that’s particularly bad since it is an attempt to override market realities, an attempt that is about as successful as trying to repeal gravity by throwing things up in the air.
The nature of the state — and the core of its rationale for existence — is the conviction that it stands apart from and above society, to correct the failings of the market and individuals. A presumption of superiority is at the very heart of the state, whether it is minimal or totalitarian. Who is to say when and where it should intervene? Well, think about it. If the state is inherently wiser than and superior to society, standing in judgment over what is working and what is not working, the state alone is also in a position to decide when it should intervene.
No government is liberal by nature, said Ludwig von Mises. This is the great lesson that people who advocate “limited government” have never learned. If you give the government any jobs to do, it will presume the right to police its own conduct and then inevitably abuse its power. That is true in China and it is true in the US.
It was the science of economics that first discovered the radical incapacity of the state to make any improvements in the social order. It turns science on its head to invoke economics as a reason for the government to loot and pillage in the name of “stimulating investment.” Stimulation here, there, and everywhere amounts to a diminution of freedom, security of property, and prosperity.
Keynes famously praised Nazi economic policies in the introduction to the German edition of his worst book, the General Theory. After a century of horrors, free men and women in China, the US, and the world surely deserve better.
