Skip to main content

Is the Market Economy Inherently Unstable, Or Is Government the Culprit?

 Following in the footsteps of John Maynard Keynes, many economists believe that we cannot fully trust a market economy, viewing it as unstable. They argue that without intervention, the market could fail and thus require government and central bank management to stabilize it. According to this view, spending is the engine of income generation, where one person's spending becomes another person's income. Therefore, during a recession, it is seen as the government's role to encourage more spending to stimulate economic growth.

However, this Keynesian perspective overlooks the issue of funding. Funding comes from prior production, meaning that for consumption to occur, goods must first be produced and saved. Using a simple example, if a baker makes ten loaves of bread and consumes two, the remaining eight loaves can fund the purchase of shoes from a shoemaker. This shows that consumption cannot drive growth on its own; instead, it notably depends on prior production and savings. Capital accumulation, which allows for further production and consumption, also relies on prior savings.

Introducing money does not fundamentally change the nature of funding; it merely facilitates the exchange of goods. Money itself is not consumable and does not replace consumer goods. While spending money can stimulate consumption, it does not guarantee real economic growth. Commonly, it is thought that the demand for goods is limited by the money supply, but in reality, it is shaped by consumer preferences and the available production. More goods can be demanded with increased production, not just more money.

Government does not create real wealth; it can only redistribute it by taxing wealth-generating individuals. Thus, when government spending increases, it can actually weaken the overall wealth-generating capacity in the economy. If private savings are adequate, they may support government activities alongside real wealth generation. However, if savings are inadequate, government spending can crowd out private investment and hinder growth.

Economic adjustments, often seen as negative events like recessions, are actually reallocations of resources according to consumer priorities after periods of market distortion due to mismanaged money and credit. Allowing free market operations typically yields better outcomes. Historical precedents, such as actions taken by Lenin, indicate that acknowledging market mechanisms can help avert economic disasters.

To remedy economic issues effectively, entrepreneurs should be allowed the freedom to allocate resources based on consumer demand. Thus, the best stimulus plan is to permit the market to function without interference. Contrary to popular belief, expansive fiscal and monetary policies do not help the economy; instead, they often prolong inefficient activities while draining resources from productive ones.

After years of poor monetary and fiscal management, the current economic situation cannot be improved by more easy money. A “do nothing” approach by the government and Fed can enable true wealth-generators to reorganize, save, produce, and exchange more effectively. This also means that unproductive entities would need to reorganize or diminish, aligning economic activities with consumer needs.

In conclusion, government spending and easy money policies from the Fed do not foster genuine economic growth. Instead of bolstering the economy, they may weaken its foundations. Should consumption alone suffice for economic growth, global poverty would already be eliminated. Past government and central bank intervention seemed to work due to prior private production and savings. Once these foundations weaken, the illusion of effectiveness vanishes, and aggressive government actions only exacerbate economic challenges. Without needing Keynesian interventions, the optimal approach is for both the government and Fed to cease meddling in economic processes.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/market-economy-inherently-unstable-or-government-culprit

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fauci Files Reveal Pfizer Helped Biden Rig 2020 Election

 Pfizer secretly colluded with Joe Biden's team to help him rig the 2020 election against Trump, according to new Fauci documents. In his new book, "On Call," Fauci admits that Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, called him the night after Biden was declared the winner of the election, to inform him of Pfizer's "Game-changing results" from the rigged mRNA trial. "On November 7, after the absentee ballots were counted, Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election. It was the very next night that Albert Bourla, Pfizer's CEO, called me away from my neighbors' fire pit to inform me about the game-changing results from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trial. I finally thought we had truly turned a corner in defeating this terrible disease." Today reports: In another interesting tidbit, Fauci discusses Trump's FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn declaring that he would not go along with the Trump Administration's plan to roll out the vac...

Republicans Withdraw $1 Billion From BlackRock Due To Its ESG Policies

  Multiple U.S. states governed by Republicans are withdrawing state funds from BlackRock's management, as they disapprove of the ESG investment policies of the world's top asset manager, the Financial Times reports. In recent weeks, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Arkansas have announced they would divest funds from... For months now, Republican states have said they would not do business anymore with asset managers who have ESG-aligned investment policies, which, the states say, show that those financial firms are boycotting the oil and gas industry. Texas is leading the campaign against this movement The Lone Star State published a list of financial firms that could be banned from doing business with Texas, its state pension funds, and local governments. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Republicans-Withdraw-1-Billion-From-BlackRock-Due-To-Its-ESG-Policies.html

The Biden-Harris White House Has An Iranian Spy Leaking U.S. Intelligence In It

 The question is, how did classified intelligence from the United States, showing Israeli military movements that suggest broader action against Iran, get to Tehran? The answer raises uncomfortable questions for the Biden-Harris White House, which has opposed Israel every step of the way in responding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Defying Biden got Israel the entire leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas, with the ultimate threat still looming: Iran and its nuclear program. Operations against Iran are being assessed also because Iran has started firing ballistic missiles into Israel, targeting civilian centers across the country. If Israel is close to launching a broader offensive against Iran, leaking U.S. intelligence would be a way to both try and deter Israel and give more warning to Iran. In 2012, similar allegations were made against the Obama administration when U.S. intelligence leaks showed that Israel was working towards using "Azerbaijan as a base of operations in the event...