Quote of the Day: Why the Worst Get on Top

The great Austrian economist F. A. Hayek explained of why the worst people rise to become despots or totalitarians: (An excerpt from Chapter 10, Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944) as published by Fee.org (bold added)

It would, however, be highly unjust to regard the masses of the totalitarian people as devoid of moral fervor because they give unstinted support to a system which to us seems a denial of most moral values. For the great majority of them the opposite is probably true: the intensity of the moral emotions behind a movement like that of National-Socialism or communism can probably be compared only to those of the great religious movements of history. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarian regimes which horrify us follow of necessity.

From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual, are essential and unavoidable consequences of this basic premise, and the collectivist can admit this and at the same time claim that his system is superior to one in which the "selfish" interests of the individual are allowed to obstruct the full realisation of the ends the community pursues. When German philosophers again and again represent the striving for personal happiness as itself immoral and only the fulfilment of an imposed duty as praiseworthy, they are perfectly sincere, however difficult this may be to understand for those who have been brought up in a different tradition.

Where there is one common all-overriding end there is no room for any general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in wartime. But even war and the greatest peril had led in this country only to a very moderate approach to totalitarianism, very little setting aside of all other values in the service of a single purpose. But where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable that occasionally cruelty may become a duty, that acts which revolt all our feeling, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, should be treated as mere matters of expediency, that the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands should become an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims, or that suggestions like that of a "conscription of women for breeding purposes" can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.

But while for the mass of the citizens of the totalitarian state it is often unselfish devotion to an ideal, although one that is repellent to us, which makes them approve and even perform such deeds, this cannot be pleaded for those who guide its policy. To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds, he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realise, no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks, and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility involve. The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way. 

Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and spying, are numerous.

Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Italian or Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads. It is only too true when a distinguished American economist concludes from a similar brief enumeration of the duties of the authorities of a collectivist state that they would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation.

Quote of the Day: Hayek: Inflation is the Most Important Single Factor for the Loss of Freedom via Government Expansion

There are two points which cannot be stressed enough: first, it seems certain that we shall not stop the drift toward more and more state control unless we stop the inflationary trend; and, second, any continued rise in prices is dangerous because, once we begin to rely on its stimulating effect, we shall be committed to a course that will leave us no choice but that between more inflation, on the one hand, and paying for our mistake by a recession or depression, on the other. Even a very moderate degree of inflation is dangerous because it ties the hands of those responsible for policy by creating a situation in which, every time a problem arises, a little more inflation seems the only easy way out.

We have not had space to touch on the various ways in which the efforts of individuals to protect themselves against inflation, such as sliding-scale contracts, not only tend to make the process self-accelerating but also increase the rate of inflation necessary to maintain its stimulating effect. Let us simply note, then: that inflation makes it more and more impossible for people of moderate means to provide for their old age themselves; that it discourages saving and encourages running into debt; and that, by destroying the middle class, it creates that dangerous gap between the completely propertyless and the wealthy that is so characteristic of societies which have gone through prolonged inflations and which is the source of so much tension in those societies. Perhaps even more ominous is the wider psychological effect, the spreading among the population at large of that disregard of long-range views and exclusive concern with immediate advantages which already dominate public policy.

It is no accident that inflationary policies are generally advocated by those who want more government control-though, unfortunately, not by them alone. The increased dependence of the individual upon government which inflation produces and the demand for more government action to which this leads may for the socialist be an argument in its favor. Those who wish to preserve freedom should recognize, however, that inflation is probably the most important single factor in that vicious circle wherein one kind of government action makes more and more government control necessary. For this reason, all those who wish to stop the drift toward increasing government control should concentrate their efforts on monetary policy. There is perhaps nothing more disheartening than the fact that there are still so many intelligent and informed people who in most other respects will defend freedom and yet are induced by the immediate benefits of an expansionist policy to support what, in the long run, must destroy the foundations of a free society.

(bold and italics mine)

All I have been saying captured in three paragraph from the great Austrian economist Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek in Chapter 21 The Monetary Framework, The Constitution of Liberty p 338-339 via Libertarianismo.org

That last statement from 3rd paragraph resonates…

Scotland’s Independence Referendum: What will Hayek Say?

What would be the likely insight of the great Austrian economist and Nobel Prize winner Friedrich von Hayek on the coming Scotland independence referendum? 

At the Lew Rockwell Blog, Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo lifts a quote from Mr. Hayek’s masterpiece the Road to Serfdom (Chapter 15, pp. 257-258) for a cue:

We shall not rebuild civilization on the large scale.  It is no accident that on the whole there was more beauty and decency to be found in the life of the small peoples, and that among the large ones there was more happiness and content in proportion as they had avoided the deadly blight of centralization.  Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the important decisions rest with an organization far too big for the common man to survey or comprehend.  Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders.  It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one’s neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows.  Where the scope of the political measures becomes so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.  I believe that here the experience of the small countries like Holland and Switzerland contains much from which even the most fortunate larger countries like Great Britain can learn.  We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fit for small states to live in.” 

(Emphasis by Mr. DiLorenzo).

Video: F. A. Hayek on J.M Keynes: Keynes Knew Very Little of Economics, Economics was just a sideline to him

In the following interview, the great Austrian economist Friedrich August von Hayek makes his comments on mainstream economic deity, John Maynard Keynes' knowledge of economics. Hayek has been a personal friend and an intellectual rival of JMK. 

F. A Hayek opens with a strong criticism of Keynes who he says "knew very little of economics"(0:10), except that Keynes concentrated (or tunneled on) "Marshallian economics". 

Hayek further says that despite being one of the most intelligent thinkers he has ever known "economics was just a sideline for him" (2:28). Hayek said that Keynes wanted "to recreate the subject".

Hayek further noted that Keynes "knew very little of 19th century economic history" (0:22) whose understanding had been guided by "aethestic appeal" although paradoxically Keynes "hated the 19th century".

Hayek also noted that Keynes was never interested in the theory of capital (4:28), was "very shaky on the theory of international trade" (4:32) although Keynes was "well informed on  contemporary monetary theory but even there did not know such things are Henry Thornton or Wicksell" (4:37) and Keynes only read French where the "whole German literature was in accessible to him" (4:48)

Interesting.

(hat tip Mark Thornton Mises Blog)

Video: F.A. Hayek, on Milton Friedman, Monetarism and Monetary Policy

In the following video interview, the great F. A. Hayek talked about Milton Friedman, macroeconomics, monetarism, monetary policies, knowledge problem and currency competition. (hat tip Cafe Hayek)

Notable quotes:

Statistics offer you a no substitute for the detailed knowledge of every single price relations to each other which really guide economic activities. That's a mistaken attempt to overcome our limited knowledge. (2:08) 

No government is capable of politically or intellectually providing the exact of amount of money which is needed for economic development (2:55) 

Abolishing the government monopoly to issue money would deprive government of the possibility of pursuing monetary policy. That's what I want (4:40)

Richard Ebeling: The Case For Freedom and Free markets in the writings of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek and Ayn Rand

Dr. Richard Ebeling, American libertarian author, former president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and professor of economics, in a recent speech dealt with the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Ayn Rand as providing for the intellectual and ethical foundations for the case of Freedom and Free markets.  

From Dr. Ebeling at the Northwood University Blog (bold mine)

Three names are widely associated with the cause of human freedom and economic liberty in the 20^thcentury: Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand. Indeed, it can be argued that Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) and The Constitution of Liberty (1960), Mises, Socialism ((1936) Human Action(1949), and Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) did more to turn the intellectual tide of opinion away from collectivism in the second half of the twentieth century than any other works that reached out to the informed layman and general public.

Now, in the second decade of the 21st century their enduring influence is seen by the continuing high sales of their books, and the frequency with which all three are referred to in the media and the popular press in the face of the current economic crisis and the concerns about the revival of dangerous statist trends in the United States and other parts of the world.

The Influence of Mises, Hayek, and Rand

In Hayek’s case, his influence has reached inside academia, that bastion of the social engineering mentality in which too many professors, especially in the social sciences, still dream wistfully about society being remade in their own images of “social justice” and political correctness – regardless of the expense in terms of people’s personal and economic liberty.

Hayek’s message of intellectual humility – that there is more to the complexities of the world than any government planning or intervening mind can ever master – has forced some in that academic arena to take seriously the possibility that there may be “limits” to what political paternalism can achieve without undermining the essential institutional foundations of a free and prosperous society.

Mises continues to be recognized as the most original and influential member of the Austrian School of Economics during the greater part of the 20th century. Mises stands out as that unique and original thinker who proved why socialist planning cannot work, that government intervention breeds inescapable distortions and imbalances throughout the market, and how central bank manipulation of money and interest rates sets in motion the booms and busts of the business cycle. The current recession has brought new attention to the Austrian theory of money and economic fluctuations, which was first formulated by Mises in the early decades of the 20th century.

While the academe of philosophers is still not willing to give Ayn Rand the respect and serious attention that others believe she rightly deserves, it is nonetheless true that her novels and non-fiction writings, especially The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (1966), continue to capture the interest and imagination of a growing number of students in the halls of higher education in the United States. In other words, her ideas continue to reach out to that potential generation of “new intellectuals” that Rand hoped would emerge to offer a principled and morally grounded defense of individualism and capitalism.

The Common Historical Contexts of Their Time

Hayek, Mises and Rand each made their case for freedom and the political order that accompanies it in their own way. While Mises was born in 1881 and, therefore, was 18 years older than Hayek (who was born in 1899) and nearly a quarter of a century older that Rand (who was born in 1905), there were a number of historical experiences they shared in common, and which clearly helped shape their ideas.

First, they came from a Europe that was deeply shaken by the catastrophic destruction and consequences of the First World War. Both Mises and Hayek saw the horrors of combat and the trauma of military defeat while serving in the Austro-Hungarian Army, as well as experiencing the economic hardships and the threat of socialist revolution in postwar Vienna. Rand lived through the Russian Revolution and Civil War, which ended with the triumph of Lenin’s Bolsheviks and the imposition of a brutal and murderous communist regime; she also experienced “socialism-in-practice” as a student at the University of Petrograd (later Leningrad, now St Petersburg) as the new Marxist order was being imposed on Russian society.

Second, they also experienced the harsh realities of hyperinflation. Rand witnessed the Bolshevik’s intentional destruction of the Russian currency during the Russian Civil War and Lenin’s system of War Communism, which was designed as a conscious attempt to bring about the abolition of the market economy and capitalist “wage-slavery.” In postwar Germany and Austria, Mises and Hayek watched the new socialist-leaning governments in Berlin and Vienna turn the handle of the monetary printing press to fund the welfare statist and interventionist expenditures for instituting their collectivist dreams. In the process, the middle classes of Germany and Austria were decimated and the social fabric of German and Austrian society were radically undermined.

Third, Rand was fortunate enough to escape the living hell of socialism-in-practice in Soviet Russia by being able to come to America in the mid-1920s. But from her new vantage point, she was able to observe the rise and impact of “American-style” collectivism, during the Great Depression and the coming of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. In Europe, Mises and Hayek watched the rise of fascism in Italy in the 1920s and then the triumph of Hitler and National Socialism in Germany in 1933, the same year that FDR’s New Deal was implemented in the United States. For both Mises and Hayek, the Nazi variation on the collectivist theme not only showed it to be one of the most deadly forms that socialism could take on. It represented, as well, a dark and dangerous “revolt against reason” with the Nazi’s call to the superiority of blood and force over the human mind and rational argumentation.

Their Common Premises on Collectivism and the Free Society

What were among the common premises that Mises, Hayek and Rand shared in the context of the statist reality in which they had lived? Firstly, I would suggest that it clarified conceptual errors and political threats resulting from philosophical and political collectivism. The “nations,” “races,” “peoples” to which the totalitarian collectivists appealed resulted in Mises, Hayek and Rand reminding their readers that these do not exist separate or independent from the individual human beings who make up the membership of these short-hand terms for claimed human associations.  Anything to be understood about such “collectives” of peoples can only realistically and logically begin with an analysis of and an understanding into the nature of the individual human being, and the ideas he may hold about his relationships to others in society.

Furthermore, political collectivism was a dangerous tool in the hands of the ideological demagogues who used the notions of the “people’s will,” or the “nation’s purposes,” or the “society’s needs,” or the “race’s interests,” to assert their claim to a higher insight that justified the right for those with this “special intuitive gift” to guide and rule over others.

Secondly, all three rejected positivism’s denial of the human mind as something real, and as source for knowledge about man and his actions. Mises and Rand, especially, emphasized the importance of man’s use of his reasoning ability to understand and master the world in which he lived, and the importance of reasoned reflection for conceiving rational rules and institutions for a peaceful and prosperous society of free men.  Mises and Rand considered the entire political trend of the 20thcentury to be in the direction of a “revolt against reason.”

Even Hayek, who is sometimes classified as an “anti-rationalist” due to his emphasis on the limits of human reason for designing or intentionally constructing the institutions of society, should also be classified as an advocate of man’s proper use of his reasoning powers when reflecting on man and society. While the phrasing of his arguments sometimes created this confusion, in various places Hayek went out of his way to insist that he was never challenging the centrality of man’s reasoning and rational faculty. Rather, he was reminding central planners and social engineers that one of the important uses of man’s reasoning ability is to understand the limits of what man can and cannot know or hope to do in terms of trying to remake society according to some preconceived design.

Thirdly, all three firmly believed that there was no societal arrangement conceivable for free men and human betterment other than free market capitalism. Only a private property order that respects and protects the right of the individual to his life, liberty, and honestly acquired possessions give people control over their own lives. Only the voluntary associative arrangements of the marketplace minimize the use of force in human relationships. Only the market economy allows each individual the institutional means of being free from the power of the government and its historical patterns of plunder and abuse. And only the market economy gives each individual the latitude to live for himself and use his knowledge and abilities to further his own ends as he best sees fit.

And, finally, Mises, Hayek, and Rand all emphasized the importance of the intellectuals in society in influencing the tone and direction of political, economic, and social ideas and trends. These “second-hand” thinkers of ideas were the driving force behind the emerging and then triumphing collectivist ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries. They were the molders of public opinion who have served as the propagandizers and rationalizers for the concentration of political power and the enslavement and deaths of hundreds of millions of people – people who were indoctrinated about the need for their selfless obedience and sacrifice to those in political power for a “greater good” in the name of some faraway utopia.

The Consequentialist Rationale for Freedom

But where they differed was on the philosophical justification for the free society and the rights of individuals within the social order. Both Mises and Hayek were what today might go under the term “rule utilitarians.” Any action, policy or institution must be evaluated and judged on the basis of its “positive” or “negative” consequences for the achievement of human ends.

However, the benchmark for such evaluation and judgment is not the immediate “positive” or “negative” effects from any action or policy. It must, instead, be placed into a longer-run context of theoretical insight and historical experience to determine whether or not the policy or action and its effects are consistent with the sustainability of the overall institutional order that is judged to be most effective in furthering the long-run possible goals and purposes of the members of society, as a whole.

Thus, the rule utilitarian is concerned with the “moral hazard” arising from an action or policy implemented. That is, will it create “perverse incentives” that results in members of society acting in ways inconsistent with the long-run betterment of their circumstances?

Welfare payments may not only involve a transfer of wealth from the productive “Peters” in society to the unproductive “Pauls.” It may also reduce the motives of the productive members of society to work, save and invest as much as they had or might, due to the disincentive created by the higher taxes to pay for the redistribution. At the same time, such wealth transfers may generate an “entitlement” mentality of having a right to income and wealth without working honestly to earn it. Thus, the “work ethic” is weakened, and a growing number in society may become welfare dependents living off the honest labor of others through the paternalistic transfer hands of the State.

The net effect possibly is to make the society poorer than it otherwise might have been, and therefore making everyone potentially worse off in terms of the longer-run consequences of such policies.

Read the rest here.

I would add the great Murray Rothbard, but contra rule utilitarians Mr. Rothbard was a champion of natural rights based libertarianism

In Remembrance of Friedrich von Hayek’s 114th Birthday

This is really a belated commemoration: the great Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek’s 114th birthday was yesterday May 8th!

Graphics from Tumblr on Friedrich von Hayek

Quote from the Road to Serfdom

Quote of the Day: Currency/Capital Controls: A decisive advance on the path to totalitarianism

The extent of the control over all life that economic control confers is nowhere better illustrated than in the field of foreign exchanges. Nothing would at first seem to affect private life less than a state control of the dealings in foreign exchange, and most people will regard its introduction with complete indifference. Yet the experience of most Continental countries has taught thoughtful people to regard this step as the decisive advance on the path to totalitarianism and the suppression of individual liberty. It is, in fact, the complete delivery of the individual to the tyranny of the state, the final suppression of all means of escape—not merely for the rich but for everybody.

This is from the great Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom

Video: F. A. Hayek Distinguishes Rule of Law and Arbitrary Laws

In the following video the great F. A Hayek distinguishes between the rule of law (general rule) vis-a-vis arbitrary laws (source liberty pen, hat tip Prof Peter Boettke)

Hayek quotes from the video:

Any redistributive policy requires a discriminating treatment of different people. You cannot so long as you treat all the people according to the same formal rules—forcing them to act only to observe the same rules—bring about any distribution of incomes. Once you decide that government is entitled to take from some people in order to give it to others, this is automatically discrimination of a kind for which there can be no general rule. They are purely arbitrary.

After long discussion in jurisprudence, it has come out that the essential point about general rule is you cannot predict who will profit from it and who will suffer from it. Any rule where you know beforehand who will be gainers and who will be the suffers is, in that sense, not a general rule

Once you authorize government to act arbitrarily there is no limit to it.

Not acting to a general rule is arbitrary. It is the only way in which you can define arbitrary.

You distinguish between the people whom you want to have more and the people whom you want to have less

The distinction is between (I can only say) a general rule which applies equally to all and a rule which distinguishes between different groups

Video: Hayek on the Importance of Price Signals

In the following video, the great Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek clarifies on some of the popular misconceptions on the free market by explaining the significance of price signals...(hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Video: Hayek: Social Justice is a Meaningless Concepcion

The great Austrian economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich A von Hayek in a discussion with Firing Line host William F Buckley Jr. and George Roche III (Hillsdale College) on Social Justice (source LibertyPen, hat tip Mises Blog)

Hayek (5:06)

There are no possible rewards of a just distribution in a system where the distribution is not deliberately the result of people bringing it about. Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust toward my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice to expect from an impersonal process with nobody can control to bring about a just result, is not only a meaningless conception, it’s completely impossible. You see everybody talks about social justice, but if you press people to explain to you what they mean by social justice…what to accept as social justice, nobody knows.

Video: F.A. Hayek at BBC (Masters of Money)

Glad to see the great F. A. Hayek go mainstream

  

Somewhere in the video, Paul Krugman (Darth Vader) said that "unregulated banking and financing system is prone to financial crisis". Really? 

 

(the number of banking crisis since the Nixon Shock; chart from the World Bank) 

Jeffrey Sachs (Count Dooku) said that one of Hayek’s “badly failed” predictions is that of Hayek’s claim that “moving to a social welfare society would eat away at the health of democracy”. Really? 

To use the US as example,

chart from Heritage Foundation

from yesterday’s chart of the day

Maybe all these has nothing to do with America’s growing police state?

Or perhaps Professor Hayek had been just too early.

video: What Hayek thought of Keynes

On inflationism: the great F. A. Hayek thought that Keynes would have "disapproved of what his pupils made of his doctrines".

Here is more of what Hayek thought of his personal friend Keynes [pointer to Bob Wenzel]

Remembering Hayek’s 113th Birthday

Yesterday was the 113th birthday of the great Austrian economist Friedrich A. von Hayek. (born May 8, 1899- died March 23, 1992)

I would like to commemorate his special day with a word of wisdom from him

A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.

Why Do People have Faith in Politicians?

Professor Don Boudreaux is puzzled and saddened by people’s unwavering faith in reprobate politicians,

Successful politicians – and particularly those who are successful on national stages – are, with exceptions too few to matter, master con artists.

Whatever is the reason why so many grown people respect holders of political office is, as it has always been, beyond my comprehension. I just don’t get it. Practitioners of no other profession are accorded more honor, respect, and (most importantly) power while at the same time being held to such low standards of ethical behavior. Actions that, when committed by the family dog, properly elicit scolding or muzzling or even eviction from the premises are, when committed by an elected official, greeted with oohs, aahhs, applause, and re-election to powerful office.

I share the same frustrations too.

Thanks to the principles of liberty, I have been enlightened that people who mattered most are those who put to risks their personal savings and capital and commit tremendous efforts to serve the consumers. Such people represent genuine public service.

Yet these wealth generating class of people are often unfairly painted as immoral or unethical by politicians, by their lackeys and their media mouthpieces.

Moreover, there has been little realization that while there will always be crooked people, corrupt and perverted behaviour are often an offshoot to arbitrary laws, excessive interventionism and burdensome taxes. Many unscrupulous actions are consequences of stifling regulations. And these have been the primary reasons for the proliferation of informal economies or black markets.

And in contrast, politicians who live by the forcible appropriation of people’s efforts, have ironically, been portrayed as having the moral high ground over the productive economic class.

Many don’t understand that the precept of “it is not what you know but who you know” has been grounded on the politicization of the marketplace. Where entrepreneurs, business people and corporate managers have been frequently harassed or intimidated by onerous regulatory and tax requirements, political “connections” become a byword for the protection of one’s properties and the facilitation one’s economic interests.

And analogous to Stockholm Syndrome, where hostages develop personal attachments with their captors, the populace yield or surrender to the “realities” of interventionism. Thus, the popularity of those who possess social and political control over others—or the politicians and the political class because of the unwarranted dependency relationship built from oppressive politics.

Of course the indoctrination factor through mass media, and the state captured private (crony) institutions have been party to the promotion of interventionism, the latter serves as a reason for the existence of revolving door relationships with crony institutions.

In the Philippines many aspire to be lawyers, that’s because lawyers are perceived to be a heartbeat away from politics. And politics has been seen by many, if not most, as a paragon of public service and career success which is entirely a popular delusion.

People hardly understand the system of ethics from which democratic politics operates on.

Basically, in arguing for the protection of society’s welfare, politicians take away people’s freedom, which is used as basis for the second step, the arrogation of people’s property. Then, the state through incumbent political leaders redistributes plundered resources to their wards and gives some of the plundered resources back to the taxpayers (e.g. welfare, public infrastructures) and claim the moral high ground of being ‘compassionate’. Yet most of such actions have been meant at securing votes to keep them in office.

I am reminded by the pungent Bennett Cerf quote in Nathaniel Branden’s book Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand

You have to throw welfare programs at people — like throwing meat to a pack of wolves — even if the programs don't accomplish their alleged purpose and even if they're morally wrong.

And of course, the rest of the taxed resources are kept for themselves in the form of salaries, perks, perquisites and other benefits (such as junkets), not to mention income from under the table transactions.

People hardly realize too that the political office have been magnet to people with sinister motivations. The great Friedrich von Hayek said the worst people usually get to the top of the political world.

Writes Doug French at the Mises Blog, (bold emphasis mine)

F.A. Hayek famously argued in The Road to Serfdom, that in politics, the worst get on top, and outlined three reasons this is so. First, Hayek makes the point that people of higher intelligence have different tastes and views. So, as Hayek writes, “we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail,” to have uniformity of opinion.

Second, those on top must “gain the support of the docile and gullible,” who are ready to accept whatever values and ideology is drummed into them. Totalitarians depend upon those who are guided by their passions and emotions rather than by critical thinking.

Finally, leaders don’t promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an “us” against “them” program.

“Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things,” Hayek explains. “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

The bottom line is that ignorance, indoctrination, propaganda, the belief in the politics of heaven (abundance) on earth (scarcity), the seduction of easy life from political redistribution, dependency on political relations as means to preserve one’s property, the popularity of social control or political power, traditionalism, peer pressures, and the Stockholm syndrome applied to political relations, among many others more, may have contributed to people’s undeserving faith in politicians.

China’s Tiger by the Tail

Apparently China’s policymakers remain staunch devotees of Keynesian economics and promoters and practitioners of boom bust cycles.

The Bloomberg reports,

Policy makers have cut the amount banks must keep in reserves twice since November to free up cash for lending, in a bid to insulate the world’s second-largest economy from the effects of a global slowdown. Interest rates haven’t been reduced since 2008.

New local-currency lending was 1.01 trillion yuan ($160.1 billion) in March, the People’s Bank of China said on its website after the market closed. That compared with the median 797.5 billion yuan estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of 28 economists and 710.7 billion yuan the previous month. M2 money supply climbed 13.4 last month, accelerating from a 13 percent growth in February, the central bank said.

Instead of allowing the markets clear on the outstanding imbalances brought about by previous policies, China’s policymakers have decided to keep riding the tiger's tail.

According Mises Institutes Vice President Joseph Salerno,

It has now become clear that the Chinese government has made its choice to avoid a “hard landing” by attempting to ride the unloosed inflationary tiger for as long as it can. But its strategy of massviely expanding fictitious bank credit unbacked by real savings will cause added distortions and exacerbate unsustainable imbalances in China’s real economy. As the Austrian theory of the business cycle teaches, this will only postpone the needed recession-adjustment process and will precipitate a “crash landing” that may well shatter China’s burgeoning market economy. This would be a tragedy of the first order for the entire global economy.

As pointed out many times here, the recourse towards inflationism by China’s political authorities has been seen as necessity for the survival of the incumbent command-and-control structure of China’s political institutions. A financial and economic bust will only magnify the growing forces of malcontents which Chinese authorities have fervently been trying to contain.

And given the enormous scale of malinvestments, like her Western contemporaries, China’s authorities will likely push for more inflationism until economic realities prevail or until real savings get depleted.

Reports the Wall Street Journal,

China’s real-estate sector is enormous—accounting directly for 12% of gross domestic product, according to estimates by the International Monetary Fund—and changing fast. To capture developments in the sector, data are collected from more than 80,000 real-estate developers and reported up through the county, city, and province statistical system….

A key concern for investors is China’s overhang of unsold property. A trip around virtually any Chinese city reveals hosts of half-finished tower blocks waiting to be completed and sold. Analysts fear that excess supply could put a dent in prices, and reduce the real-estate investment that is a key contributor to China’s domestic demand.

Official data show 2.98 billion square meters of residential property under construction at the end of February. Wall Street Journal calculations show that is more than two square meters for every person in China and enough to satisfy demand for almost the next three years without a single extra apartment being built.

So unproductive grand projects already highlighted by ghost cities and malls as seen in the video below (hat tip Bob Wenzel) will mount, as scarce resources will continue to get funnelled into projects that consumes capital.

Bottom line: A Tiger by the Tail by the great Friedrich von Hayek represents an allegory of the allures of inflationism

An excerpt from the synopsis of Hayek’s work by Professor Salerno,

In brief, Hayek argues that all depressions involve a pattern of resource allocation, including and especially labor, that does not correspond to the pattern of demand, particularly among higher-order industries (roughly, capital goods) and lower-order industries (roughly, consumer goods). This mismatch of labor and demand occurs during the prior inflationary boom and is the result of entrepreneurial errors induced by a distortion of the interest rate caused by monetary and bank credit expansion. More importantly, any attempt to cure the depression via deficit spending and cheap money, while it may work temporarily, intensifies the misallocation of resources relative to the demands for them and only postpones and prolongs the inevitable adjustment.

The policies of permanent quasi booms or ‘extend and pretend’ policies will eventually get exposed for the fiction they sell—through a colossal bust or “a tragedy of the first order for the entire global economy”.

For now, profit from political folly.

Nonetheless it would be best keep vigilant over developments in China.

Quote of the Day: In Liberty, Institutions Matter

However that may be, the main point about which there can be little doubt is that Smith's chief concern was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid. Their aim was a system under which it should be possible to grant freedom to all, instead of restricting it, as their French contemporaries wished, to "the good and the wise."

The chief concern of the great individualist writers was indeed to find a set of institutions by which man could be induced, by his own choice and from the motives which determined his ordinary conduct, to contribute as much as possible to the need of all others; and their discovery was that the system of private property did provide such inducements to a much greater extent than had yet been understood. They did not contend, however, that this system was incapable of further improvement and, still less, as another of the current distortions of their arguments will have it, that there existed a "natural harmony of interests" irrespective of the positive institutions. They were more than merely aware of the conflicts of individual interests and stressed the necessity of "well-constructed institutions" where the "rules and principles of contending interests and compromised advantages" would reconcile conflicting interests without giving any one group power to make their views and interests always prevail over those of all others.

[bold highlights mine]

The great Friedrich von Hayek, in Individualism and Economic Order, debunked the need for individual reformation—as peddled by mainstream media “I am start [of change]” as a way to progress but is no less than a disingenuous camouflaged way of promoting collectivism predicated on organized and mandated violence—but for people to live in freedom under the parameters of established institutions which protects and advances a system of property rights. [hat tip Professor Pete Boettke]

And a possible enabling factor for this would be the rhetorical, ideological and cultural acceptance by the public or the "Bourgeois Virtues" for such institutions to emerge as Deirdre McCloskey has theorized.

Quote of the Day: Knowledge Plus Inequality Equals Progress

The rapid economic advance that we have come to expect seems in large measure to be the result of this inequality and to be impossible without it. Progress at such a fast rate cannot proceed on a uniform front but must take place in echelon fashion, with some far ahead of the rest. The reason for this is concealed by our habit of regarding economic progress chiefly as an accumulation of ever greater quantities of goods and equipment. But the rise of our standard of life is due at least as much to an increase in knowledge which enables us not merely to consume more of the same things but to use different things, and often things we did not even know before. And though the growth of income depends in part on the accumulation of capital, more probably depends on our learning to use our resources more effectively and for new purposes.

The growth of knowledge is of such special importance because, while the material resources will always remain scarce and will have to be reserved for limited purposes, the users of new knowledge (where we do not make them artificially scarce by patents of monopoly) are unrestricted. Knowledge, once achieved, becomes gratuitously available for the benefit of all. It is through this free gift of the knowledge acquired by the experiments of some members of society that general progress is made possible, that the achievements of those who have gone before facilitate the advance of those who follow.

That’s from the great Friedrich von Hayek in the Constitution of Liberty.

Quote of the Day: Hayek on Equality

There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, “a new form of servitude.

That’s from Friedrich August von Hayek in Individualism and economic order (hat tip Professor Don Boudreaux)

War on Precious Metals: Has the Eurozone been Gradually Restricting Individual Gold Purchases?

Yes says Marc Slavo of SHTF Plan

A couple of weeks ago our report that some Austrian banks had begun restricting the sale of gold and silver to 15,000 Euro (~$20,000 USD) reportedly because of money laundering issues was met with disbelief by many readers of financial news and information web sites. As we mentioned in that commentary, it is our view that governments, namely in Western nations, are making it more difficult for individuals to make gold purchases, as well as to do so anonymously.

It looks like this trend of restricting the peoples’ ability to acquire assets of real monetary value is expanding. If a recent report from France is accurate, and based on the French governments official web site it looks like it is, then as of September 1, 2011, anyone attempting to sell or purchase ferrous or non-ferrous metals, which includes gold and silver, will be required to pay for their purchase via a credit card or bank wire transfer if it exceeds 450€ (~ $600 USD):

“Here is the applicable French law via www.legifrance.gouv.fr and translated into English by Google Translate:

“Article L112-6
Amended by Law n ° 2011-900 of July 29, 2011 – art. 51 (V)

“I. Can be made in cash payment of a debt greater than an amount fixed by decree, taking into account the place of tax residence of the debtor and the professional purpose of the operation or not.

“In addition a monthly fixed by decree, the payment of salaries and wages is subject to the prohibition contained in the preceding paragraph and shall be made by check or by transfer to a bank or postal account or account held by a payment institution.

“Any transaction on the retail purchase of ferrous and non ferrous is made by crossed check, bank or postal transfer or by credit card, not the total amount of the transaction may not exceed a ceiling set by decree. Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by a ticket for the fifth class.

“II.-I Notwithstanding, the costs of the department conceded that exceed the sum of 450 euros must be paid by bank transfer. (bold highlights original-Prudent Investor)

“III.-The preceding provisions shall not apply:

“a) For payments made by persons who are incapable of binding themselves by a check or other payment, as well as those who have no deposit account;

“b) For payments made between individuals not acting for business purposes;

“c) paying the expenses of the state and other public figures.

According to independent reports the law was passed to curb the illegal sale of stolen metals like copper, steel, etc. Given the rampant rise in thefts of these metals from telephone poles, construction sites and businesses here in the United States, we can certainly see this as a reasonable assessment for why the French passed this law.

When governments see their political privileges being eroded as a result of their own policies, the next set of actions would be to destroy any competitive threats on their monopoly franchise of money by restricting the ownership of metals.

I am reminded by the wisdom of the great F. A. Hayek who once wrote in Choice in Currency, (bold emphasis mine)

There could be no more effective check against the abuse of money by the government than if people were free to refuse any money they distrusted and to prefer money in which they had confidence. Nor could there be a stronger inducement to governments to ensure the stability of their money than the knowledge that, so long as they kept the supply below the demand for it, that demand would tend to grow. Therefore, let us deprive governments (or their monetary authorities) of all power to protect their money against competition: if they can no longer conceal that their money is becoming bad, they will have to restrict the issue…

…This was observed many times during the great inflations when even the most severe penalties threatened by governments could not prevent people from using other kinds of money; even commodities like cigarettes and bottles of brandy rather than the government money—which clearly meant that the good money was driving out the bad…

…But the malpractices of government would show themselves much more rapidly if prices rose only in terms of the money issued by it, and people would soon learn to hold the government responsible for the value of the money in which they were paid. Electronic calculators, which in seconds would give the equivalent of any price in any currency at the current rate, would soon be used everywhere. But, unless the national government all too badly mismanaged the currency it issued, it would probably be continued to be used in everyday retail transactions. What would be affected mostly would be not so much the use of money in daily payments as the willingness to hold different kinds of money. It would mainly be the tendency of all business and capital transactions rapidly to switch to a more reliable standard (and to base calculations and accounting on it) which would keep national monetary policy on the right path.

Legislative restrictions will not prevent people from switching to good money.