The Attraction of Free Medical Care: Egalitarianism

I have seen several different facebook entries, blog posts, and articles about how bad medicine under state control is. I am sure that an actual effort to put together a history of medical care in Canada, for example, would provide more horror stories and causes for fear than we could imagine. Socialized medicine, medicine under the rule of force, is bad medicine.

What is even more disturbing is that the citizens who live under government controlled medicine know very well what is happening to them. They are the ones who have to suffer the mistreatment, poor service, lower standards, and rationing that state controlled medicine inevitably leads to. Why haven’t we heard from these victims? Why are they silent?

There are mundane answers to those questions, for example, the fear that speaking out would result in being treated even worse by vindictive administrators and “doctors” who have bought into the “free” system. Fellow citizens also may inflict punishment on “complainers”, who, after all, are threatening a service that everyone has a right to receive, in the local accepted prejudice.

But there is something deeper I think. This isn’t just the ideal of altruism, because socialized medicine isn’t solely, or predominately, based upon the sacrifice for the sake of others or even the state. This is worse. It is egalitarianism. This is the enforced requirement that everyone be treated equal, and lower quality, equally bad medical care is acceptable. To not accept it would require questioning the premise. A person cannot argue that they should have good medical care, because that would be demanding something that cannot be offered to everyone within a socialized country. To demand good medical care is to demand that you be treated as an individual.

In “The Age of Envy”, Ayn Rand offered this example of egalitarianism, “Suppose a doctor is called to help a man with a broken leg and, instead of setting it, proceeds to break the legs of ten other men, explaining that this would make the patient feel better; when all these men become crippled for life, the doctor advocates the passage of a law compelling everyone to walk on crutches – in order to make the cripples feel better and equalize the “unfairness” of nature.” (The New Left, p. 170)

In practice, if that term has any meaning, the medical practice in a socialized country will not go around breaking legs. That would be even too obvious for most people. What it does do, however, is almost the same. Instead it makes treatment egalitarian by limitation (not to be confused with rationing). That means that the treatment a person can receive has to fall within a certain range of acceptability, of equality. This restriction to a range is justified by citing the funding limits. But is actually the reverse. It is the principle of egalitarianism that mandates the “equality” of treatments. Even if funding was unlimited, treating individuals differently would violate the fundamental tenant of egalitarianism.

Thus the result is not that the doctor has to go around breaking legs. He only has to say that available resources and funding limits restricts the treatment options available to different cases, regardless of the severity of their illness. Thus someone with a leg that is severely damaged would suffer amputation or permanent disability, rather than receive treatment that is significantly beyond what a broken leg would normally receive. Then, as funding levels do decline, doctor availability and capability decline, as standards of the population decline, the level of treatment will continue to decline over time, with no noticeable reaction from the populace.

The egalitarian application to health care also means that any medical treatment that is considered optional, such as hip replacements, would be eliminated, as has been the case in Canada for decades. It is not egalitarian to offer options.

Just this week there was a long article on the current status of Canadian health system on Yahoo. In the article there is a significant glorification of the size of the operation, ranking it internationally as a business. There is criticism of some spending shortcomings, as you find in the criticism of many government operations in this country. They are only concerned with waste and fraud, ignoring the inherent incompetence of government bureaucrats attempting to deal with such a complex subject as medical care. The article attacks the elements of the Canadian “system” that still contains some element of individual choice (the doctor’s choice of business organization and medical decisions). It goes on to discuss future funding issues. Nowhere does it discuss the actual level of care a Canadian resident receives. This subject is irrelevant!

You find the disconnect between the promise of government run health care and the quality of the care in every discussion of government run health programs. You find this disconnect in the arguments for government health care in the U.S. The proponents of health care provided by force do not actually care about the quality of care. They do not care about the consequences for the individual recipients of government run health care. Neither, apparently, do the proposed recipients, who seem only to care that they are receiving “free” health care. They only care about the implementation of force by the government. The supporters of freedom fail to point this out. It needs to be emphasized.

To my knowledge there has not been a study of the level of health care in any of the Western nations that have socialized medicine. It is quite puzzling. This study needs to be done. A study of the Canadian experience would be most helpful, since it is the most recent and most like our experience would be. (If anyone knows of a study, please tell us.)

As these arguments go on, and egalitarianism becomes more entrenched, at least implicitly, it will be harder to dig out. We must not forget the ideal of egalitarianism in our arguments and protests. It is a special application of altruism and needs its own special attention. Otherwise we shall see continued adverse consequences from both the liberal left and the religious fundamentalists. Both will push egalitarianism.

This is the way mankind pulls back from civilization, from industrialization, from the digital world, from large populations, from survival. What is killing us is egalitarianism.

Gold is Undervalued

I have come to the conclusion that gold as a financial hedge or currency is undervalued, probably by a very large factor. Actually, a better way of saying that is that today’s currencies, all of them, are very much over valued in terms of gold as a standard of value. A further way of saying this is that as the world population begins to realize the problems that fiat currencies, social programs, high debt, and reduced freedom have created, they will at least try to flee to gold to some extent, and the limited quantity of gold in existence will result in an amazing increase amount of fiat currencies required to purchase a troy ounce.

My conclusion may seem to be obvious, maybe even trivial. My point is that the current price level is not something to be seen as high or remarkable. The current price level is the result of a few people out of our total population, worldwide, who have decided to use gold as a store of value. The current portion of our wealth that is placed in gold is a very small portion.

Currently, the gold market goes up and down (trending upward in what is really a fairly slow assent) as a result of daily random news releases about things of little, long-term significance. None of these news events about government activities or economic events addresses the underlying problems or will stop the consequences of those problems.

What is up in the air, I think, is whether the consequences will be swift and catastrophic or wind us down painfully over a longer period of time. But, the reality of the situation is absolute. Some of those people who claim to be gold bugs who pay any attention to the daily or short-term prices changes, including trumpeting new “highs”, are missing the point. Sure, point out the new high level of fiat currency needed to buy gold, but also keep people’s eye on the necessity of the price going higher. The price is still low. By keeping your eye on the fundamentals, you will not get caught up in day-to-day irrelevancies. If the price of gold should fall for a while, keep in mind that nothing has changed in the fundamentals, you should not be concerned. It is actually a buying opportunity.

The relationship between gold and the present day currencies is just as any other market relationship. There is a limited supply of gold, more so than most items for sale, even more so than most commodities. A higher demand for gold will elicit a greater production, as the prospect for profit encourages a search for more sites to mine and makes it possible to mine ore that would be unprofitable at lower levels of demand. Yet the amount of new production has rarely been sufficient to have much impact on the supply and demand balance. New production will not change the fundamental problem of fiat currencies. New production of gold will not sufficiently affect the day-to-day prices to enter into any purchase decision.

The amount of currency that is needed to acquire a troy ounce of gold depends then on the amount being offered for all the gold for sale. If the amount of fiat currency being offered raises, then the amount per ounce will raise. Supply and demand is a root an exercise of arithmetic. The relationship between the current level of fiat currencies and gold would require a much higher exchange ratio than currently exists. Since nearly all countries are continuing to inflate their currency, the amount of those fiat currencies necessary to buy an oz. of gold will rise even higher.

Gold has reached its current quantitative relationship with the currencies of the world in an environment in which few regard it as a real alternative to today’s fiat currencies and few are willing to take the risk of placing their liquid assets in a mere commodity. Gold has reached a high dollar “price” with only a few people actually using it as a value repository.

When gold was last widely known to be a store of value, the earth’s population was less than a quarter it is today. A century ago, there were perhaps only 5% the number of dollars in existence as there are today (the dollar has lost 95% or its purchasing power since 1913, and there is more loss to come). There are more currencies today and much more of each currency. I doubt that there is more than twice the amount of gold in human hands today than 100 years ago, maybe even less.

How many people own significant amounts of gold, say even $1000? How many people own gold as part of their portfolios? How many Objectivists own gold? The quantity of each has got to be very low, even after the last monetary crises.

As long as people with assets continue thinking that moving into dollar assets, especially U.S. government debt is a “safe” move, the upward pressure on gold will be slight. Probably enough to keep it rising and hitting new “highs”, but not enough to push it toward a realistic value in today’s world. Keep an eye on these people who are using U.S assets for safety. When the U.S. dollar assets are also viewed as less than safe, gold will begin moving upward on a steeper angle. At this point I don’t know what is required for people to realize the dollar’s weakness. The added debt, the continued current account deficit, the lack of movement in the U.S. economy, and the threat of more “stimulus” should have everyone worried. It seems that people worldwide have not accepted that gold could have a real role to play. The attacks by the Keynesians have had some impact. Instead, people are bouncing between the Yen, the Euro, and the dollar. At some point you would think that they would get tired of the bouncing and look for some actual safety. Given the state of the gold market, it would not take many new buyers for the dollar price to balloon. It won’t be an asset inflation, but a dollar fall.

If and when people become worried and there is a more concerted movement toward actually safe, real assets, the number of dollars or other currency necessary to acquire an ounce of gold will skyrocket. We haven’t seen anything yet.

THE CHINESE CURRENCY: A BIG SHOE THAT COULD DROP!

For over a year the U.S. economy has been just chugging along without any apparent stresses. I mean, nothing has happened within our economy to cause panic or increase the level of fear people are feeling. Certainly, the economy is far from healthy. It is not growing to speak of. Unemployment is very high and few jobs are being created. Some communities appear to be in depression, while others are only marginally affected.

In the political area, the focus related to the economy is all of the promises made and no results. The current administration isn’t being blamed for making things worse, just not making them better. The government has declared that the “big drop” is over, the recession has ended, but the signs that growth is occurring or may happen in the future are muted at best.

My own mood is that of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well, there are many shoes that could drop. And any of them could be more disastrous than the big dip of 2007. Which one will it be? Or perhaps the question to ask is which one will be first? Only time will tell. Let’s think about one potential shoe, the push to have the Chinese revalue their currency.

One issue that the politicians are focusing upon is the international value of the Chinese currency. It is contended that if the Chinese currency is valued more in line with real relative national purchasing power, the U.S. dollar would be stronger and the U.S. would benefit from a greater demand for its products. There are several things that are difficult about this. It is true that China’s approach is the old, thoroughly discredited view (among those who are aware of the history of economic ideas) that a nation’s wealth is achieved by hoarding valuables. At the beginning of the exploration of the New World, for example, countries would scour for gold and silver in the Americas, bring it home, and put it in a vault and declare that they were wealthy. So, several Asian countries, including Japan and China, insist on controlling the exchange rates (although Japan is trying counter balance that now) and hoarding the dollar and the Euro (China has a large surplus with the Euro Zone as well).

Of course, hoarding anything is not wealth. A dollar, or any currency is only as valuable as what it will buy. A currency, especially a fiat currency, in international trade is a claim on that country’s production.

On the other hand, a country does need reserves (speaking within today’s structure), i.e., a stash of cash available when and if needed to settle international debt or payments. What cash is available? Well, they aren’t going to begin using gold, if for no other reason than that the process of beginning to use gold would cause the value of the dollar to die. The same problem holds for any other currency that could be chosen other than the dollar. If the process of changing to another currency was done slowly, perhaps the dollar wouldn’t collapse. Unfortunately, such a process should have started a couple decades ago.

As it is, the international system is stuck with dollars into the foreseeable future. Okay, but there is no need for countries like China and Japan to continue accumulating dollars. They have more than they need, and they are worried about the constant flow of dollars and what that means for the future. What they could do is to turn around and begin buying stuff from us with the dollars that they would have hoarded, the current cash flow. Sounds good, right?

We will even ignore the probable, immediate consequence that the dollar would lose significant value just because it wasn’t being hoarded as before. Forget that. Forget that immediately, foreign goods would be significantly more expensive. Let’s just concentrate on our own goods.

The mainstream economists think that to create growth, what is needed is consumption, more spending. That is why they set things up to expand the money supply. More money, more spending, more wealth, they think. Great, huh! So, these same economists would be happy for foreigner to be spending more in the U.S. It means more demand. They felt the same way years ago when the economy seemed to be humming right along, with very high employment, and very low unemployment. We had what some called “full employment”. I always wondered what they thought was going to happen. The unions, progressives, Keynesian economists all thought that more money running after our goods was going to be good, when there was no one to produce them.

Today things are a little different. We have a large number of people unemployed and lots of capacity that is sitting idle. It is not the most efficient capacity, but it is there. What we don’t have is a significant amount of raw material sitting around. Nevertheless, as foreigners began to send those dollars that they don’t hoard back to the U.S., we will now see more dollars running around. At first, the new demand will cause some shortages, and prices will begin to rise, since the actual stock of good will be unaffected, at least for a while. Then, over time, more capacity will be used, more people rehired, more produced. But, then the real bottleneck appears. Or rather two bottlenecks. One will be the need for raw materials for the higher level of production. Costs will have to rise to compensate for the higher costs of materials as users bid for the material available. The other bottleneck is that some new investment will be needed, but the government has soaked up all available savings for its deficit. To get loans or attract investors, businesses wanting to expand will have to bid against the government for savings. That will also tend to raise costs, and the cost of government borrowing will also increase.

What this really means is that the return of all of the money we send out in a year for foreign trade will result in higher prices, both for domestic goods and much more so for foreign goods. It is unlikely that we would see the “gentle” 1-3% inflation we have seen with few exceptions over the last couple of decades. It will be higher.

Now why would we see higher inflation just because foreigners spend the money that we sent for goods? It certainly wasn’t the case throughout our history, right? Wouldn’t it make sense for there to be a balance? Well, yes. But our situation over the last decades is very different. It is hard to understand, apparently. Some supposedly free market bloggers don’t accept my thinking here.

For decades we have had not only a trade deficit, but a cash-flow deficit, called a current account deficit. While the trade category covers trade, obviously, it doesn’t include investment flows between nations and government transfers. Normally, if a country has a trade imbalance, the difference is made up by the return of the deficit in investment, or the purchase of government bonds, for example. Even then, if the current account is not in balance one year, it swings back the other way the next, or at least over time a country’s current account will balance out. This has not been the case for the U.S. for a long time. The current account deficit will be less than the trade deficit.

One way to understand what is happening would be to imagine that you are a country and buying from other people – countries – often. Your purchases are all made by check. You send out many checks and everybody honors them and sends you the merchandise you want. But, you find out, by analyzing your checkbook that some of your trading partners are not cashing your checks. They are just keeping them (for some strange reasons – your crazy cousin has all kinds of weird theories as to why, saying that they want your checks as reserves, that your partners use them as cash with other people, etc.). So, you have both the things you bought and the money you with which you thought you bought them. Sounds like a good deal. It is sort of. But, if your honest, and know that there is a future, you might be somewhat worried about what happens when all of those checks come wondering back, especially if they all come back at once!

Let’s take 2009. The U.S. bought more stuff than it sold by $374 B. The current account difference was $378 B (usually, the current account deficit is smaller than the trade deficit). You can look at the history of the U.S. current account here. So, there have been billions upon billions of dollars that have left the country and not come back, not even as loans to our government. My discussion in this post is limited just about this year’s money not returning. (Think how bad things would be if the money from past years returned as well!)

Under a gold system, if money left every year and didn’t return, the money supply would continue to shrink and there would be a corresponding drop in prices. There would be ramification of a continued outflow of dollars. There are ramifications under the present circumstance, just not the ones that would occur in a rational economy. In the present circumstance, the U.S. price level actually continues to creep up. That is because the money supply continues to creep up. The money supply creeps up in spite of billions of dollars being lost every year to foreigners. Where is the money that is being lost coming from? I am sure that you know the answer. It is the Fed., the official U.S. money maker upper!

One key fact to remember about international trade is that it functions completely on credit. When an importer buys, he sends a letter of credit, which does not pay the exporter until the goods are received and accepted by the importer. The letter of credit is a bank document, and is what it says it is, a credit, a loan. Purchases by U.S. importers are financed by bank credit pushed by the Fed. We see that even though banks in the U.S. are not making loans to businesses for new production, they are making loans for importing, i.e., we still have a big trade deficit. The money we have been exporting for years is all made up, Fed. produced money. So the Fed increased the money supply, we sent it overseas to buy stuff, and those people kept the money, just like the example with your checks. (Why? See my discussion of Schiff’s book, Crashproof. The “Why?” is even more a big question after they have kept so many dollars after so many years.)

The situation is not good for the Chinese and other countries that have built up big surpluses of foreign money (which is mostly in digital form). Recently, there was a push to move away from dollars toward a “basket” of currencies, including Euros. The wisdom of that idea was demonstrated this summer as many of the Euro Zone countries have been shown to be in financial difficulties. Maybe people will begin to realize that fiat currencies of any stripe will not stand up to normal, mixed economy political processes. The dollar became strong, i.e., higher priced against the Euro, for a while because the dollar again looked like the strongest, safest currency. That view will fade. So the Chinese, to use them as the example because they have the biggest hoard, are sitting on vast sums of dollars, some of which are “invested” in U.S. government debt, a little of which is invested in other countries, both real assets and government debt, and some of which is sitting as reserves, as gold would sit. If and when the dollar falls, the value of these massive holdings will fall, which would not be good for the Chinese economy. Thus, the Chinese are walking a tight rope, trying to keep the dollar from a death dive, which also means their currency at a lower price, and make small moves to reduce their dependency on the dollar. Everyone is watching them. They have to be careful.

Which also means that they are confused by the U.S. political leaders constant demands that they increase the value of their currency. The Chinese realize to some extent the consequences of that action. They can only be astounded by the U.S. politicians. Those fine people, the Congressional leaders don’t seem to have much understanding of international economics (not surprisingly, since they don’t have much understanding of domestic economics, either). They do understand that the jobs issue plays very well in this country. They see that demanding that the Chinese buy more U.S. stuff there might be more U.S. jobs, and play it for all they can. Real consequences are far out weighted by political appearance. They can always blame someone else for the unexpected consequence.

But if the Chinese, and the other Asian countries begin spending those dollars on U.S. goods, we begin to see those made up dollars running after the few goods we have purchased and prices begin to rise, interest rates begin to rise, and the quiet calm that we have had, a quiet calm in which we have been able to have good fight for our lives, will end and who knows what could happen then.

Update: Treasury Attempt to Control Retirement Assets

The Labor and Treasury Departments have announced hearings that are the next step in their attempt to control and probably divert individual retirement savings. These hearings are next week.

There is nothing new here particularly. The wondrous workings of bureaucracy require many obtuse steps working toward making recommendations to the legislature. The hearings are that next step. At this point the apparent goal is still just requiring employers of offer a lifetime income option as part of a 401(k) plan. A lifetime income option that is not a pension is called an annuity. (Most non-government pensions are effected by the employer buying an annuity for the pensioner.) The step to government seizing or controlling retirement savings is contained in the justification for beginning this process: retirees are not adequately managing their retirement assets to provide for their entire lives. (I won’t go into the entire discussion on this point. For that discussion see my original post and this for background .)

The only comments of the government’s interest in this issue that I have seen is in the far right blogs and in a couple liberal think tanks. The right has immediately jumped to the conclusion that the government intends to grab the assets, which isn’t irrational. They also propose that this is BO’s idea, which I tended to endorse in my earlier posts. I wonder. I think that the Labor Department is quite capable of thinking this one up on its own.

The blogs ranting about this issue have included IRA’s as threatened by the Labor Department’s intensions. At this time IRA’s have not been mentioned.

The interesting question now is will this process continue if the Dems lose control of the legislature this November. I bet that it will. I think that the process has just as good a chance of succeeding with the Republicans. They are just as paternalistic as the Dems, just as eager to show concern for people’s retirement. After all, Social Security reform was a Republican “achievement”.

The initial legislative step would be to pass a law requiring employers with standard 401(k) plans to offer a lifetime income option. At that point the lifetime income option would probably be an annuity provided by an insurance company. The bad thing about this law would be the added expense and waste of time needed to meet the requirements, plus the fact that the new option would add another bad element for the participant from which to choose.

Soon, the Labor Dept. would discover that few people were choosing to put their money in the annuities, and that, in the opinion of the Labor Dept. the population was still failing to adequately manage their retirement funds. It would also be determined that the insurance company annuities were too expensive (dirty capitalist, profit mongering, insurance companies). Something more would need to be done. Then they would start the hearing, etc. process over again to come up with the need for the government to offer the annuity and that at least a certain percentage of retirement fund contributions be placed in that annuity.

There we are, a large new source of government financing.

(I edited the title because people were getting the wrong idea.  The Treasury & Labor Depts will want to control where you can put the money and fund the U.S. debt, but there is no evidence that their intent is to steal those assets.)

Combating Altruism

In a previous blog posting I argued that it is important for the supporters of capitalism, freedom, and reason to know what capitalism is from the economics standpoint and to understand the economy in which they live. If we want people to support it, we must be able to explain it. That position is still a correct one. Many supporters of capitalism do not know the economics and certainly do not know what is happening in today’s economy.

Recently I reread Ayn Rand’s 1960 speech, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” and had the opportunity to deeply examine chapters 2-5 of Andrew Bernstein’s The Capitalist Manifesto. These writings have again underscored to me the importance of the moral arguments. The central point in both works regarding the morality of the altruist is that altruism is independent of reality, of reason. Pointing out the necessarily disastrous consequences of the policies proposed by an altruist will not influence his commitment to the irrational.

In recognizing that position, we must realize that the altruist politician and policy maker and their supporters are somewhat immune to our direct, pointed statements about the consequences of those policies. That group of people includes many of their supporters in the electorate. We must recognize that that we need to attack their own closely held beliefs. I don’t think that they will be influenced by our arguments, but they will be harder for them to ignore, perhaps. They seem to be able to ignore nearly anything.

More useful will be making those attacks when arguing publicly, i.e., articles, editorials, and lte. I don’t think that a philosophical discussion of altruism is helpful. Generally there isn’t enough word count to do so and readers might not stay with you. I propose that instead we use the consequences, that is, we spell out the “human” cost of these policies in the context of morality: We talk of the suffering of countless Americans. We talk of the loss of the ability to acquire the items that make our lives better or even comfortable. We talk of the potential of depression and hardship. We talk of the recent dire recession we are living in. We talk of human sacrifice. We spell out how these policies are going to make life harder and worse. We talk of how the politicians do not care about the consequences of their policies, only that they fit with their morality of human suffering. We talk about the disconnect between reality and their policies. But these consequences must be discussed within a moral perspective. The discussion has to focus on specific consequences of the morality being used. It seemed to me that the accusation that ObamaCare included “Death Panels” was effective. It carried the idea and the real meaning of ObamaCare. This type of tactic needs to be carried further. We must not mince words or be “nice” or polite. Being nice and polite allows the evader wiggle room.

Clarity and the relation between the altruist’s policies and the welfare of the reader are what are important. We don’t talk about their rational self-interest, but the values that are rational that they have, for example, their families. We talk about how these anti-man policies are going to impact their families. How their hopes for their futures and the futures of their children are being destroyed by the specific, destructive policies being offered and made into law. We talk about how their children will not have their parents around as long as they expected. We talk about how their children are not going to have a better life. We talk about their children’s shorter life span. We talk about their children’s not receiving the inheritance either expected. We talk about the lower standard of living that their children will have. We talk about the fact that this will be the first American generation to leave their children worse off.

Offer real images to the reader contrary to their general morality, i.e., what are they going to say to their child when they complain about their illness and the government run health plan won’t help? Are they going to tell them that morally it is good for them to suffer? Are they going to give them stories about helping poor people when in fact they themselves are now poor and there is no help for them? Being too nebulous will not bring the point home. Talking about paying back the current debt will not be useful mainly because these predictions in the past have not had an impact on the current economy (at least that people have realized).

What we must keep in mind is that the explicit or implicit holder of the morality of altruism does not regard consequences of his actions as pertinent. That is why Congress rarely examines the consequences of the laws it passes. Consequences are not important. What is important is taking actions consistent with altruism, “helping others”, sacrificing for the good of others. We know that this cannot be practiced successfully. We know that individuals cannot and do not practice this morality personally. They just support their government’s actions. What can only break through this compartmentalization by concretizing the consequences they will connect to themselves. Using concretization in a directed manner, utilizing our reader’s own values will help bring the real meaning home.

It will help you to also keep clearly in focus the consequences of failing to stop the direction of the federal government. Too often we are seeing the future in terms of economic consequences, i.e., reduced standard of living and opportunity. We are thinking in terms of loss of being able to state our views. These images are too peaceful and mild. This is the most complex, interconnected economy in mankind’s history. It will not be able to maintain its cohesion if several parts come apart. In Atlas, the trains stopped. Food could not reach New York City. Food shipments stopped. In our world, oil deliveries will be imperiled and food deliveries will become undependable. What will happen in our cities if food is not readily available, not to mention other requirements of living? Digital systems will prove to be fragile. As the economy comes apart, so will the society. There is much more anger, fear, and resentment today than during the 1930’s, for example. We have riots today over court cases. Just think about food riots. Just think of a lack of food and starvation in American cities. This is what human sacrifice looks like in practice. That’s right, human sacrifice. Not ritual sacrifice, but the human sacrifice that results from the government’s practice of altruism.

I am not trying to be alarmist here. I am not projecting a crash within the next few months, or even the next couple of years. The election coming up will give us a good indication of what our immediate future holds. I am only saying that our arguments must keep in mind the fact that holders of the morality of altruism (or the god oriented version) do not consider consequences to be an issue. To be effective and meet the threat, we must shape our arguments accordingly. The moral context and the real consequences have to be pared and driven home.

If in the next election we have a Republican Congress, we will then talk about the Christian right and that they have the same mind frame. They are not interested in the welfare of individuals. They are interested in making their god happy. Human happiness doesn’t help. They require suffering, just as the progressives do.

To reduce the role of altruism as the dominant political philosophy and replace it with reason and capitalism, we need to make our arguments as effective as possible.

Outlook: The Economy and Inflation

If I haven’t mentioned this before, let me do so now: keep an eye on “business news”. So many people are focused on the political issues that they don’t take time to look at the business pages. People also tend to consider business news as very specialized, I think. I mean that the stories involve finance and accounting concepts that are not sufficiently understood by the average, intelligent person. I would agree if the articles on the business pages in the normal daily newspaper or news web site were about actual businesses and markets, etc. Most articles, unfortunately, are actually about the government and its activities. What would pass as actual news in the business world is ignored there just as real news is ignored in the other sections. Further, the “reporters” in the business section are not people with an education in business, finance, or economics. Nor do they have business backgrounds or even a history of intelligent investing. They are people with journalism degrees who could not make it to the front pages. Years ago someone did a survey of the people writing for Money Magazine. They found that few of the writers had any investment background. The writers for Money Magazine were young, inexperienced, and had bought into the Money Magazine “philosophy” (and advertising strategy) without question.

So it would seem that I have just given you good reasons to ignore the business pages. Well, even so, it is the reports on the government that you need to look out for. A few of those reports are considered significant enough to reach the front page. Many of the others are important to know about. You need to have a broader view of the economy we live in and its prospects to better understand what could happen in the future. You need that for yourself, to better plan for yourself and your family.

For example, some people are carrying on about high inflation and you might think that inflation is raging and creating havoc. Look around you. Do you see prices in general going up? Significantly? There is some, of course, but nothing big has happened as of yet and may not for a while. People who are carrying on about inflation happening now are ignoring the actual situation. (I am not suggesting that there is no threat of inflation or hyperinflation. There is. But it is a threat, a possibility and can be avoided.) Many people are ignoring the issues of Social Security and Medicare and their impact on the budget, today. You don’t keep track of this stuff without looking at the business section (and reading this blog, of course!).

Okay, so lets talk about outlook, or what I have called the Inflation Watch in the past. This time I am broadening my focus.

In spite of all the pushing, money pumping, stimulating, and general noise making, the government, including BO and Bernanke, has been unable to get the economy functioning, producing consistently, and growing. They don’t know why. Their mental framework, the “understanding of the world” they utilize to make decisions, has not brought them to the shining success they expected. But don’t despair; they know why it didn’t work. We didn’t cooperate, we being the banks, the business, the capitalists, the consumers, all of the non-government types. It is our fault. They will just have to try harder. Don’t worry. They, BO and his gang and Bernanke and his colleagues, will not question their ideas.

In the meantime, the economy is floating along, not improving, deteriorating marginally in areas that are hidden. More houses are being foreclosed upon (funny how there are few if any news reports about foreclosures these days, which was big stuff a year or two ago). BO is considering “restructuring” Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. You know that won’t be good.

There is more unemployment and few new jobs, relative to the available workforce. (Notice that in my area, just outside of Washington, DC, unemployment is low. Isn’t that strange. Notice also the various comparisons between federal government employee incomes and the private sector.) Industrial production rose for a while, but has now slowed, if not stopped growing. Imports are again exceeding exports significantly, and the gap is growing. The balance of payments (all money transfers as opposed to just trade) shows that foreigners are still keeping dollars (idiots).

Not to be left out, foreign governments are doing just as much to screw things up as the U.S. government. Many who are looking at the Chinese to be shining stars are ignoring the fact that their Communist government believes in doing the same thing that the U.S. government does. We are the great capitalist nation and the Chinese are emulating us.

Someone could reasonably say to me that it isn’t really today that we need to be worrying about. It is the future, maybe the intermediate future. I agree. There are certainly significant seeds of terrifying doom planted in today’s economy, i.e., the debt, the made-up money at the Fed, the lack of any savings available for investment, the flood of new regulations, etc. The list is very long. Even worse is the lack of understanding of the true nature of the situation where the decisions are being made or where the decisions are being evaluated, i.e., the press.

Nevertheless, the American economy is not just the government or the Fed. There are millions of other actors who are seeking their best interest and working to achieve their own goals. These people have learned over the last century how to work around and within the government actions to minimize the consequences of those regulations and laws. Their ability to do so is not unlimited. But they have shown amazing creativity and resilience. We aren’t necessarily doomed.

Just as the government and mainstream economists don’t question their premises, those who have cried doom often in the last decades don’t seem to question why that doom hasn’t occurred. At root, they seem to give the government a kind of power in the economy that means that the non-government population is completely helpless and their actions have no consequences. Destruction is inevitable. Consequently, these doomsayers tend to pounce upon any small indication that things are coming apart as proof to the government’s power.

We must keep perspective.

The economy today is wallowing. The people making decisions are idiots. In many respects the average American cannot be relied upon to make good decisions. Even so, there is a lot of good stuff going on in our economy and society (including us). We can make it through with only a little damage. It would help if people listened to us. It would help if the American voters put in a non-Dem house of the legislature. Unfortunately, we can’t count on those events.

So what is the “Outlook”? At best it is very uncertain. Under current conditions and leaders, the best we can look forward to is more of what we have had over the last couple of years: no growth and floundering. With some positive results in November, maybe things will move toward the early part of this decade (not really good but better than now). But the potential is there for disaster. It isn’t unavoidable, just a potential.

Inflation and the International Wheat Market

One site that I monitor that discusses inflation is loudly trumpeting the recent rise in wheat prices as proof of their longstanding belief that we will be seeing lots of inflation, and future hyperinflation. They have forgotten or did not know that inflation is a domestic issue, revolving around a nation’s currency, that price inflation is a rising of the general price level, and that many different things can cause a specific product’s price to change, even without regard to any government activities. They also do not seem to understand the importance of looking at the context of the facts of reality, in this case the international wheat market.



Before looking at the wheat market, I want to emphasize that there is no free market in the world. All markets, including international markets, are affected by individual nation’s attempts to manipulate their own domestic currencies and product markets. Nearly all nations today are manipulating domestic markets directly or indirectly with little restraint. International markets are the total sum of the actions of each nation, plus the actions of individuals and associations of individuals (companies) both to meet normal business objectives and to avoid government restrictions. Whenever international markets are discussed today, these basics must be remembered. If someone talks as if markets were free of interference, we know that they are missing, ignoring, or evading current conditions. It is true that international markets do act independently of any one nation and that the controllers of a nation’s economy are often unhappy with what happens in different world markets. But the markets themselves are fundamentally affected by the actions of different governments, which often overcome real, purely economic or business factors.


Occasionally, and maybe surprisingly within today's context, a market will move as a result of events, real events, not government activity. That is what has happened in the world wheat market. Interestingly, the Russian economy after communism (notice I didn’t call it “capitalistic”) has turned its production of wheat into an export crop. Before, under the communists, Russia had to import wheat, in spite of its very fertile agricultural regions. Russia, as a mixed economy has managed to become a major exporter of wheat. Even so, Russia is not an advanced economy, not even where agriculture is concerned, so that it is more vulnerable to “mother nature”. Russia is suffering from a major draught (see news stories about fires around Moscow, too). Its wheat production has fallen dramatically (the Russian government has now banned wheat exports), and the world price for wheat has risen as supply has fallen, as you would expect.


A rise in a commodity’s price due to a shortage is not inflation. Certainly, if there is inflation, the situation would be worse, which is true today in nearly every country, but they are still two different things. Someone who doesn’t notice the difference does not understand the issues or the economy.


The price of oil is similar to that of wheat, with some additional provisos. The effects upon the international oil market of the actions of individual governments are more obvious, to anyone who looks, that is. The most important result of government action on the oil market is that of reducing the supply of oil, enforced shortage. Governments in many nations have restricted the search for and the recovery of oil. Further, many oil rich nations do not allow private companies to operate in their country, so their search for oil and its production is generally less competent and less successful.


If you have read my earlier posts you will have seen that I have been expecting oil prices to rise to close or above the prices from earlier this decade. The basis of my expectations were that the reasons why the prices was above $100 a barrel would exist again, i.e., increasing demand from the two largest populated countries in the world, India and China. Chinese demand for oil has resumed. India doesn’t seem to be as strong as it was, however. What we have seen is a price that has gone up, but still is significantly lower than it was earlier this decade. I think that the lower price is due to lower demand in the U.S., and probably Europe as well, due to the fact that neither area has recovered from the 2008 recession. Neither area is poised to actually recover, so for the immediate future, we can expect world oil prices to remain lower than the earlier highs. This may be true even though U.S. production of oil is bound to be further constrained by the backlash from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


To further my point in this post, oil price increases are not necessarily the result of inflation, either. International oil prices are going to be generally impacted more by direct manipulation by each countries domestic controls. There are so many examples besides the obvious restrictions on drilling and refining, which predominate in the U.S. Most of Europe has taxes on gasoline that make it very expensive, thus cutting demand. Some countries subsidize gasoline sales to consumers, increasing demand. Many of the oil rich countries have nationalized oil ownership and production. It would be interesting to research Indian and Chinese government policies regarding the discovery of oil reserves, production of petroleum products, and the importation and distribution of oil and gasoline. Regardless of those policies, both countries currently require significant importation of oil to support their growing economies, and their increasing requirements will tend to push international prices up. Which is not inflation. An investor, in a fairly rational context, would look upon the emergence of large economies that were actually developing as opportunities for enormous profit.


To that let me add a note regarding commodities in general. I want to talk about the basic stuff of production, i.e., metals, not foodstuffs. Consider a world in which all economies, all countries, were becoming capitalists. The initial supply of the basic materials of production would be stressed to meet the demand of newly productive economies. New mines and processing facilities would be competing for investment funds. Initially, prices for these materials would increase and products worldwide would become more expensive. This would continue for a while because the new mines would be producing material that was harder to extract and more expensive to mine or process. Over time, new mining and processing technology would be discovered which would tend to reduce the cost. Some of the upward pressure on commodity prices is happening now with the emergence of more productive economies. There are opportunities both in the short-run and longer term for investment, profit, and creativity.