It is, at times, difficult to wade through all the subtle changes that have occurred in this country, particularly the truly drastic changes that took place during the 20th Century. The problem is that there is simply not much information about these subtle, but drastic and transformative changes that were implemented in our government and country but there are hints.
These hints can be found in various publications, documents and news sources from the period from the 1930's to our present day, but the interpretation of these hints requires connecting dots that are not always apparent. One area in particular went through a massive and relatively misunderstood metamorphosis beginning in the 30's and today we remain trapped by those changes in the very foundational structure of our economic system.
It was, without a doubt, a revolution one that completely overturned the order and role of our government in our lives. This revolution came in the form on a complete economic transformation that promoted the intervention of government into the markets, but that was just part of the story; for this transformation allowed the government to expand its ability to intervene into every area of the lives of the American People.
Under the cloak of saving free market capitalism this revolution subverted the very foundations of the free market and throughout the process it has been instrumental in subverting the Constitutional foundation of individual freedom within this country. The Great Depression opened the door to the imagination of economists and politicians; since that time it has run wild.
The government came to the rescue during the 1930's and has been in the rescue business ever since. What the American People didn't know was the heavy price of that rescue; most are still unaware of the actual price that they have paid since the government came to the rescue or the price they continue to pay. They say that nothing is free and that has never been as true as what we have been wooed to relinquish in return for what is purported to be economic security.
We look at what occurred during the 30's and think that the government only intervened in the markets, banks and industry, but the truth is that this was only a portion of the rescue plan that revolutionized the foundational economic and political principles of our country. The other part of this rescue plan involved the government playing a direct role regulating all income, savings, and investments and spending.
Of course, we think we are in control of our income, our savings, spending and investments, but the reality is that the government has implemented controls through various subsidies, taxation, as well as government ownerships and partnerships in various sectors of the economy. Even wages and prices are manipulated through this system of government management. For decades we have been fed the line that we live under free market capitalism, but it is impossible to compare what this government has done over the past three quarters of a century and believe that it remotely resembles free market capitalism or freedom, for that matter.
With the goal of full employment and capacity production, this government began to take a path that would radically change the entire complexion of not only the political economy, but the social economy of this country. In the process, the structure of our government was also transformed into a system of bureaucratic administration responsible for the management of this massive economic machine they created. Once this system was created it could not be abandoned without massive economic and social disruption, the political price for such disruption would simply be too high a price for the politicians to pay therefore, it continues. Of course, it is not without its benefits, but those who benefit are not the workingmen and women of this country.
In order to sugarcoat the reality of this massive management system the government bureaucrats invented various labels such as "Compensatory Fiscal and Monetary Policy", it simply sounded much better than Government Managed Economy, but the name doesn't change the meaning. The drift into a socialized system of economic, social and political management began during the 30's and the march toward a full-fledged, systematic socialistic government has continued unabated. Once implemented, the system became self-perpetuating.
As J. Kenneth Galbraith said:
"There is a widespread notion that one of the most primitive of modern ideological choices is whether a government shall be Keynesian or not . . . no present or future administration really has the non-Keynesian choice."
Regardless of which political party is in office, the nature of this political economic system, once it was implemented, became self-perpetuating. It moves the country toward a self-socializing form of government regardless of the desires of the People of this country and even our elected representatives. The revolution in economy thought during the 30's was far more than economic in nature; it was also completely revolutionary in the political and social arenas as well.
There should be no doubt as to the direction the Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian and Post-Keynesian ideologies are taking this country. As Paul A. Samuelson stated: “[Fascist Regimes] have often passed socialistic measures. This is not a paradox at all, for fascism was (or is) a form of socialism similar to British socialism, or to the managed-currency, welfare state proposed by American Keynesians.”
By the 1940's this revolution in "new economics" had infiltrated the universities of this country and permeated economic thinking to the point that all opposing views were effectively rooted out of the higher educational system in this country. Generations of economic students were completely indoctrinated in the essentials of this new economic catechism. By 1950, the majority of universities and professors were teaching this new economic doctrine, textbooks reflected the accepted doctrine and the students were oblivious to just what they were being taught since it was the only accepted school of economic thought presented.
The truth of the matter is that so-called new economic theory was not new at all, but a revival of core socialist patterns of economic thought that were formulated during the second half of the 1800's. This core socialist pattern involved government intervention into economic affairs that would gradually lead to government intervention into social affairs; the outcome of which would be a transformation of the entire political structure of the country.
One of the ideas that arose from The Great Depression was the idea of "social-consumption expenditures", sounds innocuous enough until we understand what it means and the purposes behind such expenditures.
Lawrence Klein, in his book "The Keynesian Revolution" provided the meaning and the purpose behind such expenditures:
"We need a non-profit institution like the government which can provide a comprehensive, minimum program of social security in order to reduce the propensity to save. This program must cover the entire population, and it must cover all those contingencies which cause people to save on a large scale for the future."
While maintaining the label of free-market capitalism and individual freedom that is associated with it, we have a system that both confiscates and redistributes the labor property of people in order to reduce savings. In a managed economy, savings is an anchor that weighs down the movement of the entire system of this political economy. Under this managed system savings must either be drastically reduced or eliminated all together in order for other aspects of control to take place; it is easy to see that the reduction of savings in this country has been achieved.
Remember, the goal is worker productivity, full employment that allows the system to continue maintains control, particularly social control; without it the flaws in the system quickly become apparent. The focus therefore, is jobs; even the most useless jobs are considered vital to the entire complexion of the system. To understand just how far this ideology goes the words of Theodore Morgan explains the extent that the government will take in order to maintain the system: “. Even from the point of view of output, it is better to employ men in digging holes and filling them up than not to employ them at all; it is better to employ men to make products which we thereupon dump in the middle of the ocean than to leave them idle."
Of course, all of this was seen during The Great Depression, the government followed the recommendations of Keynes to "do something". This rather strange concept can be found throughout the economic theories of those who espoused the "new economy". While it is apparent that those who follow such economic thought must have considered their proposals and theories logical, the following example should show just how irrational these people were, and still are: "Giving money to foreigners is a form of "investment," even though we get nothing in return. If we could only export one of the printing presses used for the manufacture of Federal Reserve Notes to, let us say, China, our foreign investment would be enormously higher."
Keynesian lunacy has run rampant in our country and still, to this very day, influences our government in ways that few understand. According to these ideologues, government spending, obviously of any type, stimulates private employment and economic stability, yet it is all financed through taxing or inflationary monetary policy which drains and strains the entire "private sector" within the mixed economy. As we have seen, this government, along with its partner in managed finance: the Federal Reserve Bank, has effectively manufactured the monetary system needed to achieve the socialization of this country, without the use of a fiat monetary system none of this would be possible. It is also a mistake to believe that the Federal Reserve Banking system serves an economic purpose, it does not, its purpose is political in nature and the directors of the Federal Reserve are completely faithful to the political trust of those who appointed them and the legislation that allows the bank to continue functioning in a political capacity that promotes very specific socio-economic agendas.
Those who followed Keynes were well aware that sound money had to be destroyed otherwise there would simply be no way to implement the complete core socialist pattern in this country. The various proposals of Keynes and his subsequent disciples, who advocated "compensatory fiscal and monetary policies", by implication, necessitated the abandonment of sound money and this was accomplished by the introduction of inconvertible currency. Once the currency became inconvertible it was merely a formality to then create a total fiat system, which was accomplished in 1971. As Nixon said when he cut all ties between the U.S. Federal Reserve Note [once known as the Dollar] and gold: "We are all Keynesians now!"
Of course, Keynes was well aware of the dangers of fiat currency, so too have his subsequent Keynesians and Keynesian-derivations. They have all readily admitted that inflation, and the depreciation of the fiat currency is a problem, but they maintain it is controllable, but the controls are as onerous as the problem. Thus to prevent the effects of an ever-expanding fiat monetary supply, these proponents maintain that the government must have the power to manipulate credit, interest rates, prices and wages. The government, in accordance with this ideology, must be "given" total control over all fiscal policy.
This control, this power "allows" them to spend whenever and spend whatever amount that they "feel" is needed to stimulate the economy, but it also "allows" them to tax, regulate and stifle to any degree to restrain the subsequent inflation brought about by their print and spend fiscal policies. What this means is that the government central planners have a direct affect on the lives of each and every American. Not only do they directly affect the lives of Americans in terms of individual income, savings and expenditures, but essentially the future of the American People to actually determine the direction of their lives is also affected by these policies.
Now, because of the very nature of this "new economic" system, the only alternative to this form of management is for the government to implement wage and price controls. If all of this sound likes Socialism, there is a reason for that. Many of our politicians; and most of those who adhere to the officially approved economic thought don't seem to realize just what this system has done and is doing to this country. It is absolutely amazing to listen to our politicians, the economists they listen to and the media that covers this entire theatrical production of folly and irresponsibility. The have utterly failed to grasp the fact that by "allowing" government to maintain complete control over fiscal and monetary policy that it has effectively abolished the free market principles that promote individual liberty and freedom. The entire concept of government control over the aspects of the market is completely inconsistent with the Constitutional traditions of the United States and destructive to those means.
However, to avoid the flaws inherent within this mixed and managed economy, the government must maintain and expand its authority over taxes, spending, credit, investment, wages and general price controls otherwise the system eventually stumbles. Thus, the self-perpetuating nature of the system becomes of paramount importance even though every solution becomes a subsequent problem that requires yet another solution, which creates, even more problems. The cat cannot stop chasing its own tail.
Again, to understand the mentality of these "new economists", these Keynesians and Keynesian-derivatives we need look no further than their writings. When dealing with the rapid increasing debt, these economists seem to give us a choice between two untenable conditions. As the Stanford economist Tarshis stated: "If we do not want high debt, high interest rates, high wages, and high prices, then in effect we do not want high employment and prosperity." Such logic is required by this political economic ideology and by implication, the system does not allow for one without the other. There are so many connections that are unseen in this system, so many forces at play that few know the consequences of the interactions of those forces, but the consequences are becoming more and more evident.
One such consequence we are facing today is that of our creditors and their willingness to continue to finance our economy through the purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Even a few decades ago this question was on the minds of the Keynesians, once again as Tarshis said: "The only question, then, is whether the government can always find a lender or someone who will accept government bonds. In the final analysis this is no problem for the simple reason that the government controls the Federal Reserve Banks and can always compel them to buy government bonds. Anyone who controls a bank and is free to make the rules under which it operates will have no trouble in borrowing money. The government is in precisely this position, and therefore can always secure funds. There is no sign that a high debt exhausts the credit of the government of the United States. And since as a last resource "it can borrow from itself," there need be no fear on this account."
In the same vein of thought, Lawrence Klein said: "An internally held public debt can never be a burden, because we owe it to ourselves." Of course, this line of thought rests solely upon the idea that the managed "mixed economy" can, under the "compensatory fiscal and monetary policies" continue to grow enough to produce a balance between production and debt, thus affecting the ability to reduce the burden of debt. The balancing act cannot however, be sustained under such an economic system because the system is in constant conflict with the natural market forces that always seek to correct distortions, particularly when those distortions are created by numerous and massive external interventions which seek to artificially manipulate the economy for social and political reasons. Those social and political reasons are based in the concept that the government is the sole provider of appropriate social action, thus it is therefore, the sole granter of all benefits to achieve such action.
Another Keynesian voice from the 50's denotes the attitude that now flourishes in this government: "Probably, majority opinion agrees with our own national policy that the right of a man to engage in business for himself is not a basic freedom." ~ Theodore Morgan. This grand ideological experiment has created the most unbelievable contradictions in our country; while labeling itself as the defender of our liberty and freedom on one hand, on the other it implements policies that are totally and absolutely alien to the principles this country was founded on. It is as if those in our government cannot understand the connection between economic freedom and individual freedom; there is no concept within our government that not only does "compensatory fiscal and monetary policy" infringes upon the liberty of the People, but that it actually contributes to a steady decline in the economic prosperity of this country.
Make no mistake about what the so-called ethical goals of this government are, those goals are doctrinally Socialist whether it is ever admitted or not. Through the years, the decades, it has been easy for these ideologues to accuse and blame free-market capitalism for all the economic and social woes faced in this country, yet when we understand that those economic and social woes are not the result of free-market capitalism, but are a direct result of seven decades or more of government intervention and social engineering.
Even today, the People are hearing that in order to save free-market capitalism we need to abandon the principles of the free-market. Saving capitalism seems to be the favorite mantra of Socialist ideologues and yet, today, as in the 1930's, the problem is not the free-market, but the distortions brought about by government intervention. Under this Keynesian Socialist system the solutions always turn into problems that require more solutions; this fact is clearly evident by looking at the effects of this economic thought in this country over the last seventy-five or more years.
Through the decades, there has been a growing vested interest in the various types of government spending, especially in terms of subsidies; political corruption is a natural outcome of the creation of such vested interests. Indeed, along with vested interests in spending and subsidies, there is the inclination toward inefficiency and waste, not only in material resources, but in terms of human resources as well.
We have allowed our minds to be glossed over with decades of indoctrination that presents a completely different portrayal of our political, social and economic situation in this country; the reality is concealed by years of acceptance and compliance. Those who continue on this diet of social preferences, politically correct social planning and the collective conscience of our country never understand the problems that such policies create, they simply appear unable to see the connection and therefore they must always seek yet another scapegoat on which to place their hands before banishing the animal to the wilderness. Eventually there will be no scapegoats on which to place blame and they will have to take full responsibility for the policies they have promoted and enacted.
As a former Keynesian, Dr. L.A. Hahn stated: For it [the Keynesian view] presupposes an economy whose members do not see through the changes brought about by monetary or fiscal manipulation or as some might say, the swindle. Above all, it presupposes that people are blinded by the idea that the value of money is stable by the "money illusion."
Indeed, Keynesian Economics and its derivatives are little more than the Economics of Illusions, but it appears that those illusions have been so pervasive and obviously persuasive that few in their ranks question its validity. The concrete proof of the illusionary nature of these economic theories is the economy itself; it is the product of such nostrums. As such, it is impossible to believe that based on the illusionary nature of these theories and the application of those theories that a healthy economy can be produced by the policies that emanate from them. It the assumption is incorrect, the results of those assumptions will also be incorrect.
Contrary to those who are following closely in the footsteps of Keynes and his theoretical descendants, it is impossible to have underinvestment in free markets, additionally if they seek a remedy for unemployment they need look no further than to a return of free market labor and the removal of trade barriers, which, by the way, includes the so-called free-trade agreements which are nothing more than managed trade.
There is no alternative, for as we are seeing this government is following a well-beaten Keynesian path toward even further dislocation. It is absurd to believe that this government, by utilizing the same type of policies that created this economic dislocation, can, by simply enlarging those polices, cure the economic ailments that this country now suffers. The government is once again embarking on yet another easy-money policy to solve the problems that easy-money polices cased.
Unemployment cannot be cured by such actions; perhaps I should say that employment, productive economic employment, couldn’t be created by such actions. The government is once again traveling down the expedient road that will ultimately lead absolutely nowhere. Thus is will only perpetuate and in the process only aggravate the very problems it seeks to solve. Eventually, these forces will converge into a situation that is completely beyond the control of any policies, but for some reason those in our government are blinded by the idea that although the solution they are seeking to implement has been the source of the problem that maybe it will work this time if we throw much more money at it; the results will be catastrophic.
Decades have proven that Washington, D.C. is filled with weakness and immense amounts of bad judgment; as well as political officials who are willing to yield to various influences that are far from beneficial to this country and its People. Perhaps the circumstances faced by this country will finally awaken the People to the reality that they now find themselves and in the process the People will once again place demands for real responsibility on every level of government.
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Keynesian Socialist Subversion
The last seventy years or so have proven the massive flaws in the official economic and monetary policies which are promoted by this government, but it appears that there are few who are either capable or willing to view these flaws regarding the solutions that are available to resolve those flaws. Evidently, during this latest economic dislocation, we will see yet another round of flawed economics and monetary policy emanating from the Keynesian mentality that permeates the official realms of our government.
Keynesian Economics was created to create problems and not offer solutions. That seems to be a radical statement however, when you judge that statement in the light of the writings of those who knew John Maynard Keynes and his economic theories, it becomes apparent that they were well aware of the effects that Keynesian Economics would have on the well-being of the economy and that those effects would create the need for an ever-increasing amount of government intervention. Perhaps the clearest explanation of the effects of Keynesian Economics can be found in the writings of Keynes’ contemporary and Socialist Comrade John Strachey. Strachey stated that Keynesian Economics was “an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever- increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."
It should be very obvious, and irrefutable, that the real purpose of Keynesian Economic Theory was to completely undermine economic stability, thus creating a constant and steady need for government intervention that would eventually destroy the actual free market, leaving no alternatives but a government centered Socialist market economy.
In the book ”The Failure of the New Economics”, Hazlitt stated, correctly, "Keynes's plan for ’the socialization of investment' would inevitably entail socialism and state planning…Keynes, in brief, recommended de facto socialism under the guise of ’reforming' and ’preserving' capitalism." That statement, of course, is in agreement with Strachey’s assessment about what effects Keynesian Economics would have on the substructure, and eventual superstructure of economics.
Strachey again, referring to Keynesian Economic Theory, said: “If once it were admitted that capitalism could be regulated and controlled in this way, might not the wage-earning majority of the population come sooner or later to the conclusion that the thing to do was neither to put up with things as they were nor to go through the fiery furnace of social revolution, in order to establish a wholly new system, but to harness - to bit and to bridle - capitalism in its own interest? Was it not apparent that Keynesism had only to be pushed a little further and a state of things might emerge in which the nominal owners of the means of production, although left in full possession of the legal title to their property, would in reality be working not for themselves, but for whatever hands had grasped the central levers of social control?”
Additionally, Strachey stated: “It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is accordingly proposed to establish socialism as something, which we can put in the place of our present decaying capitalism. Hence, communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.”
Thus, according to Strachey, the goal has been to gradually introduce Socialist mechanisms within the capitalist market systems through degenerative measures [such as Keynesian Economic Theory] that would increasingly promote government intervention in the markets. This has indeed happened over the last seventy-some-odd-years, and today we are seeing an even greater push by government in a response to this latest dislocation in the economy, as predicted by Strachey, as well as other Socialists.
It becomes apparent that one of the goals of Keynesian Economic Theory is the transformation of a free market economy into an official government economy. Indeed, if we look at the effects of Keynesian Theory on the actual monetary and economic policies executed in this country over the decades it becomes easy to see that this particular theory has eliminated the normal market mechanics for artificially induced and managed market mechanics. You will notice that over the years the savings rate in this country has gradually deceased, consumption, driven by debt, has increased and during this process the government has drastically increased its power over the economy. Due to various mechanisms within Keynesian Economics, in particular the enforced use of Fiat Money, private monies for investment has gradually dwindled while government monies have increased. Without private monies there is no other way for the markets to be maintained other than through public funding, thus the government must intervene and provide capital in the markets, as we have seen. At this stage, once the government infuses public funding, it has the power, as we see, to dictate not only conduct within the market, but also the various processes involved in business decisions.
John Maynard Keynes was closely associated with various Socialist groups; in fact Keynes once described himself as a Bolshevik and was well aware of Socialist doctrine and theory. Keynes, in his book “Economic Consequences of the Peace”, stated: "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose."
Indeed, Nikolai Lenin spoke before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared of Keynes: “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois....”
The political economic nature of Keynesian Economics cannot be denied, nor can the effects of those theories on the entire economic and social structure of our government. Keynes, in a letter to fellow Socialist George Bernard Shaw, said: “I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize ... the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can’t predict what the final upshot will be in its effect on actions and affairs. But there will be a great change, and in particular the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.”
Geoffrey Pilling, a Marxist, wrote of the effects of Keynesian Economic Theory on the Western Capitalist Societies saying: “It [the West] accepts Keynes’ own belief in the primacy of ideas in the shaping of state economic policy. An examination of the development of the role of the state indicates that there is an organic trend towards ever-greater state involvement in the attempted regulation of economic and social matters. It concurs with Keynes’ own judgment about the significance of his work: namely that it did in fact constitute a revolution in economics. We have already noted that there is little if any agreement amongst those who would wish to be labeled Keynesians about the nature of this revolution.”
The “Keynesian Revolution” has effectively created a continual increase in the levels of involvement by the government in economic markets, in fact if you look at the latter half of the Twentieth Century you will see that free market capitalism, not only in the United States, but internationally, has been heavily influenced by this Socialist Keynesian Revolution. It is also important to understand that the works of Keynes was not only lauded by various Socialist groups, including Marxists, but the Fascists and even National Socialists [Nazis] equally held Keynesian Theories in high esteem. In writing the “Forward” to his German Edition of the General Theory, Keynes stated: "The theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."
In the Journal of Political Economy, you will find: “German economists in the early 1930s were well aware of Keynes's work, and were developing theories along parallel lines. These involved the now-familiar prescription for economic depressions of large budget deficits, public-works programs, and easy credit.”
Of course, there can be no doubt that government involvement in the markets and the regulatory state reached its height under Fascist theory and execution; likewise Keynesian Economic Theories lead to the overwhelming necessity of such intervention. The Fascists, in particular the National Socialist Party [Nazi], were the first to put into practice the economic theories found in Keynes’ General Theory; the Nazis implemented truly massive public works projects and increased deficit spending seeking to encourage full employment of the German peoples. The Nazis also created what amounts to an inflationary boom, this naturally increased productivity, but as we know it was based on the assumption that an inflationary boom can be permanent when in fact they are artificially induced and will eventually deflate.
The fact is that inflationary booms are nothing more than the conscious application of Keynesian policies, which naturally lead to even more government intervention due to the effects brought about by the collapse of such inflationary booms. Whether Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist, Keynesian Economic Theory provides the necessary economic system to achieve government involvement in the social relationships of economic production.
When a government employs Keynesian Economic Theory there is the inexorable tendency toward more and more government intervention into every area of economic functioning within the market. Actual regulation of the capitalist economy has little to do with what is finally arrived at through the policies employed and are only the medium by which greater intervention becomes necessary. The theoretical work of Keynes, as well as others, cannot be underestimated and should not be confused in judging cause and effect; hearkening back to the words of Strachey, there is an inherent process within the mechanics of Keynesian Economics that promotes the implementation of Socialist Political Economics, thus replacing free market capitalism with government intervention. Generally speaking, while there appear to be contradictions engendered by the apparent growth in economic production during the various business cycles, particularly in the boom portions of those business cycles, the gradual increase of the degenerative effects associated with the bust of the booms cycle provided the material foundation for increasing government activity and intervention in the markets.
In looking at Keynesian Economic Theory, it should be apparent that Keynes has become on of the central forces behind government regulation of the markets and the increasing degree of intervention into those markets. The ideological importance of this aspect of Keynesian Theory is the basis of the growing role of government and has not only transformed capitalism, but has basically negated the effects of capital markets in favor of government control. In this respect, which is of extreme importance, Keynesian Economic Theory has provided the government with a central function within the economy. Since his theories tend to implement the need for such intervention, the question then arises concerning the effects such intervention have on the lives of the individual and the degree to which the individual becomes dependent on the government for his economic, and therefore social well-being?
Keynes’ criticism of unregulated capitalism rest primarily in his belief that social stability could not be achieved or maintained and therefore he saw the need of a highly centralized economic plan be administered by government intervention; thus, this belief lead him to a rather pragmatic-utilitarian view of the necessity of ad hoc government intervention in economic markets. This idea or belief however, did not originate from Keynes’ himself, but came from the Fabian Essays, published in 1889, by Sydney Webb, Bernard Shaw and others. Like Marx, the Fabians, including Keynes, believed that it was necessary for governments to gain control over capital markets, the monetary systems, credit and the implementation of a progressive income tax system to achieve the goals of Socialism. Indeed, Keynes, in pure Fabian form, thought that it was absolutely necessary to end laissez-faire policies in order to end capitalism, for without free markets; capitalism would then be prone to crisis after crisis under the guise highly regulated economy while retaining the capitalist label. Free market capitalism died in the Twentieth Century, thanks in a large part to the policies promoted by Keynesian Economics.
President Bush recently said: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Now, if you look at that quote from President Bush in the light of Keynes’ General Theory, you will find a more eloquent statement bearing the same meaning: “Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism, I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.”
Bush, in short, reiterated what Keynes stated, advocating further government intervention into the markets to save the capitalist system; nothing could be further from the truth however. As Keynes stated: “Our final task might be to select those variables which can be deliberately controlled or managed by central authority in the kind of system in which we actually live.” In concrete terms, Bush, like Keynes, meant that there is a necessity to select as many variables within the economic system as possible, at this point, to achieve effective and applicable controls in preserving the existing economic form while allowing for even greater government management. Under the continuing guise of preserving the capitalist market system, Keynes, and it appears that Bush, believed that the operations of the government intervention would be crucial to “save the free market system”, even though it involves a complete abandonment of free market principles, essentially destroying the last remnants of free market capitalism.
For decades the American People, and even most of our politicians, have lived under the illusion that our economic system has retained its free market capitalist nature; the fact is that there has been a hybrid system that is so far removed from free market principles that it can no longer be defined as a free market. Keynes’ views have prevailed and today we see that the government has taken an extensive and growing responsibility over economic functions in our society.
Like Keynes, most of our politicians believe that the government must not only regulate the economy to provide price stability and “full” employment, but that it is also obliged to promote any and all measures that generate sufficient investments to compensate for the shortfall of private capital in our system due to various economic drains brought about by the policies of Keynesian. Thus, in the Keynesian view, the government should employ what amounts to national income to achieve various economic and corresponding social goals; this is exactly what has taken place in this country over the last seventy years as we have seen the rise of the government as the central component of our economic system and not merely an external force. Essentially, the government has promoted what amounts to “welfare capitalism”, which in realistic terms is nothing more than Socialism where a government “supra-class” of administrators who manage the economic and social welfare of all members of our society regardless of their social status or economic position.
It should be evident in our current state of government involvement in economic relationships in the market that Keynesian theories have become the primary driving force behind economic and monetary policies in this country. Additionally, it is evident that the degree of income redistribution that takes place in this country has proved effective in producing a stratified social structure where a hierarchy of wealth is concentrated in those who are politically connected and enjoy the benefits of those connections with government. Along with the upward redistribution of income, Keynes proposed that the wages of the masses be reduced covertly through the government-regulated process of inflation or monetary depreciation.
Keynes stated: “A movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be much more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices.” Thus, as we have seen, particularly since 1971, the government use of controlled inflation would allow for an increase in the nominal wages or face value wages of workers while actually affecting a simultaneous reduction in real wages or purchase value wages through price inflation. This would not only achieve he goal of providing government with needed revenues for its expansion, but would continue the illusion that more money is being put into the pockets of the working man and it would also allow for the illusion of greater profits for business; the reality, of course, is just the opposite. Regarding this effect Keynes stated: ”It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that it is necessary.”
Essentially, Keynes proposed that the government, and only the government is responsible for the determination of the rate of reward a person can achieve by productivity; thus the functions of market forces are no longer determinant factors. One should make no mistake about what has taken place in this country or in the effect of Keynesian Economics have had on the entire economic structure upon which this country depends. There has been a very definite and intentional control over income policies in this country, all under the disguise of ensuring price stability and social equity. What most people don’t understand is that these policies create numerous distortions within the economy and have untold unintended consequences that promote the need for ever-increasing government intervention. Consequently, there has been a gradual move toward government-centered arrangements within the economy, and those developments have rapidly increased over the last couple of decades which have essentially lead to the creation of a type of Socialist Corporatism, which, by the way, is not inconsistent with the ideals of Fabian Socialism.
Keynesian Economic Theory, in particular The General Theory, paved the way for the ideology that free market capitalism is incapable of being maintained and could not regulate itself or function without government intervention. It is therefore claimed that government intervention and the ancillary spending that always accompanies that intervention is the essential precondition to achieve stability in the market, the consequences of this intervention is, of course, the increased provisions of Socialization, not only in the market, but also in society. The most prominent feature of Keynesian political thought has come in the form of the drastic rise of government spending, but apparently the vast array of economic experts fail to see or choose to ignore is that such intervention and spending is nothing less than a massive drain on surplus value and capital, thus the effects will always aggravate and dislocate the market. Keynesian-based economic and political policy made such spending acceptable and generally respectable due to the fact that such spending is presented as a means of economic growth and stabilization however, the history of the last fifty years has shown that is not the case.
The creation of a mixed economy the standard of Fabian Socialistic thinking, which Keynes obviously adhered to in his theories, can be found in the Fabian Political & Economic Policy is the foundation of the Socialist agenda: "The individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be FORCED BY EVENTS to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. What is required, if with only a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed STATUTORY CORPORATIONS and PUBLIC UTILITY BODIES and OF LAND TRUSTS."
Historically, all public expenditures were considered basically economically unproductive however, as Keynesian Economics gained widespread acceptance, the historical and accurate historical view has been pushed out of the way by the proposition that not only was such spending beneficial, but that the massive levels of debt to fund such expenditures was of no consequence. According to the theory, at least, the vast amount of borrowed funds would be recouped by higher taxation on the production stimulated through such expenditures, of course that is not quite how it worked out.
Alvin Hansen, one of the leading Keynesian Economist during the 1960’s stated: “the long-standing lesson of history that growth requires an increase in money, credit and debt. And in the public-private economy of today, a well-balanced growth suggests an increase of debt at all levels – business debt, consumer debt, state and local debt, and federal debt.” While, on the face of it, such a statement seems to be correct, indeed there appears to be a general expansion of economic growth, but the nature of that growth should be called into question. The fact is that such an expansion, both of the money supply and credit, both of which are debt instruments, have a long-term detrimental effect in the markets, creating unhealthy distortions and eventual economic dislocations which always require an increasing degree of government intervention.
Under the prevailing winds of policy, based largely upon Keynesian thought, all government expenditures is financed through borrowing, thus pushing the growing burden into the future and thus, regardless of the political will, it will always drain future surplus value, or as we have seen over the last few years, hope-for surplus value. The reality of our economy, disguised as capitalism, still produces surplus value in the private sector only to have it drained away by the public sector. The resources devoted to the public sector always come at the expense of the private sector. The presumption that government spending can actually be a means to the creation of productive and therefore surplus value is to indulge in an illusion, yet our politicians seek to engage in such illusions on a regular basis. Eventually however, the future becomes the present and the effects of previous economic policies, government interventions and expenditures prevail. We are seeing distortions on a number of fronts, many of which have not revealed themselves as of yet, but will press upon our economic reality in ways that the government will not be capable of providing solutions, even temporary ones.
Even Marx was well aware of the illusions behind such government expenditures: “The sum that was lent to the state no longer has any kind of existence. It was never designed to be spent as capital to be invested, and yet only by being invested as capital could it have made itself into self-maintaining value . . .. No matter how these transactions are multiplied, the capital of the national debt remains purely fictitious, and the moment these promissory notes become un-saleable, the illusion of this capital disappears.”
The charade can only be maintained as long as the growth of government expenditures is at a rate below the accumulation of capital, when the equilibrium shifts and the distortions present themselves the dislocation is no longer containable and there is a growing threat of consumption of a far greater proportion of productivity and thus the extraction of surplus value increases. The inclination of those in government however, is to increase expenditures, as we are currently witnessing; this action, particularly under the already burdened system, will only exacerbate the problems. The parasitic claims of the government continues to fasten onto flesh of this country, it lives and thrives on the backs of the people by passing the burden of debt for the various spurious programs onto the working class of this country through increasing reductions of their living standards, the depreciation of the labor value of their wages and the increase of social controls.
As with former Administrations, the new Administration will continue to press forward with exactly the same policies that created this growing and chronic economic dislocation in the first place. The point will come however, when the government must institute severe cuts in every area that it has assumed responsibility in its expansion of the welfare/warfare state. The conundrum will come when those who have lambasted free market capitalism run out of scapegoats and must admit that the malfunctioning within the economy is due to the character of the policies of government intervention and Keynesian-based economic theory.
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae
Keynesian Economics was created to create problems and not offer solutions. That seems to be a radical statement however, when you judge that statement in the light of the writings of those who knew John Maynard Keynes and his economic theories, it becomes apparent that they were well aware of the effects that Keynesian Economics would have on the well-being of the economy and that those effects would create the need for an ever-increasing amount of government intervention. Perhaps the clearest explanation of the effects of Keynesian Economics can be found in the writings of Keynes’ contemporary and Socialist Comrade John Strachey. Strachey stated that Keynesian Economics was “an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever- increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."
It should be very obvious, and irrefutable, that the real purpose of Keynesian Economic Theory was to completely undermine economic stability, thus creating a constant and steady need for government intervention that would eventually destroy the actual free market, leaving no alternatives but a government centered Socialist market economy.
In the book ”The Failure of the New Economics”, Hazlitt stated, correctly, "Keynes's plan for ’the socialization of investment' would inevitably entail socialism and state planning…Keynes, in brief, recommended de facto socialism under the guise of ’reforming' and ’preserving' capitalism." That statement, of course, is in agreement with Strachey’s assessment about what effects Keynesian Economics would have on the substructure, and eventual superstructure of economics.
Strachey again, referring to Keynesian Economic Theory, said: “If once it were admitted that capitalism could be regulated and controlled in this way, might not the wage-earning majority of the population come sooner or later to the conclusion that the thing to do was neither to put up with things as they were nor to go through the fiery furnace of social revolution, in order to establish a wholly new system, but to harness - to bit and to bridle - capitalism in its own interest? Was it not apparent that Keynesism had only to be pushed a little further and a state of things might emerge in which the nominal owners of the means of production, although left in full possession of the legal title to their property, would in reality be working not for themselves, but for whatever hands had grasped the central levers of social control?”
Additionally, Strachey stated: “It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is accordingly proposed to establish socialism as something, which we can put in the place of our present decaying capitalism. Hence, communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.”
Thus, according to Strachey, the goal has been to gradually introduce Socialist mechanisms within the capitalist market systems through degenerative measures [such as Keynesian Economic Theory] that would increasingly promote government intervention in the markets. This has indeed happened over the last seventy-some-odd-years, and today we are seeing an even greater push by government in a response to this latest dislocation in the economy, as predicted by Strachey, as well as other Socialists.
It becomes apparent that one of the goals of Keynesian Economic Theory is the transformation of a free market economy into an official government economy. Indeed, if we look at the effects of Keynesian Theory on the actual monetary and economic policies executed in this country over the decades it becomes easy to see that this particular theory has eliminated the normal market mechanics for artificially induced and managed market mechanics. You will notice that over the years the savings rate in this country has gradually deceased, consumption, driven by debt, has increased and during this process the government has drastically increased its power over the economy. Due to various mechanisms within Keynesian Economics, in particular the enforced use of Fiat Money, private monies for investment has gradually dwindled while government monies have increased. Without private monies there is no other way for the markets to be maintained other than through public funding, thus the government must intervene and provide capital in the markets, as we have seen. At this stage, once the government infuses public funding, it has the power, as we see, to dictate not only conduct within the market, but also the various processes involved in business decisions.
John Maynard Keynes was closely associated with various Socialist groups; in fact Keynes once described himself as a Bolshevik and was well aware of Socialist doctrine and theory. Keynes, in his book “Economic Consequences of the Peace”, stated: "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose."
Indeed, Nikolai Lenin spoke before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared of Keynes: “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois....”
The political economic nature of Keynesian Economics cannot be denied, nor can the effects of those theories on the entire economic and social structure of our government. Keynes, in a letter to fellow Socialist George Bernard Shaw, said: “I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize ... the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can’t predict what the final upshot will be in its effect on actions and affairs. But there will be a great change, and in particular the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.”
Geoffrey Pilling, a Marxist, wrote of the effects of Keynesian Economic Theory on the Western Capitalist Societies saying: “It [the West] accepts Keynes’ own belief in the primacy of ideas in the shaping of state economic policy. An examination of the development of the role of the state indicates that there is an organic trend towards ever-greater state involvement in the attempted regulation of economic and social matters. It concurs with Keynes’ own judgment about the significance of his work: namely that it did in fact constitute a revolution in economics. We have already noted that there is little if any agreement amongst those who would wish to be labeled Keynesians about the nature of this revolution.”
The “Keynesian Revolution” has effectively created a continual increase in the levels of involvement by the government in economic markets, in fact if you look at the latter half of the Twentieth Century you will see that free market capitalism, not only in the United States, but internationally, has been heavily influenced by this Socialist Keynesian Revolution. It is also important to understand that the works of Keynes was not only lauded by various Socialist groups, including Marxists, but the Fascists and even National Socialists [Nazis] equally held Keynesian Theories in high esteem. In writing the “Forward” to his German Edition of the General Theory, Keynes stated: "The theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."
In the Journal of Political Economy, you will find: “German economists in the early 1930s were well aware of Keynes's work, and were developing theories along parallel lines. These involved the now-familiar prescription for economic depressions of large budget deficits, public-works programs, and easy credit.”
Of course, there can be no doubt that government involvement in the markets and the regulatory state reached its height under Fascist theory and execution; likewise Keynesian Economic Theories lead to the overwhelming necessity of such intervention. The Fascists, in particular the National Socialist Party [Nazi], were the first to put into practice the economic theories found in Keynes’ General Theory; the Nazis implemented truly massive public works projects and increased deficit spending seeking to encourage full employment of the German peoples. The Nazis also created what amounts to an inflationary boom, this naturally increased productivity, but as we know it was based on the assumption that an inflationary boom can be permanent when in fact they are artificially induced and will eventually deflate.
The fact is that inflationary booms are nothing more than the conscious application of Keynesian policies, which naturally lead to even more government intervention due to the effects brought about by the collapse of such inflationary booms. Whether Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist, Keynesian Economic Theory provides the necessary economic system to achieve government involvement in the social relationships of economic production.
When a government employs Keynesian Economic Theory there is the inexorable tendency toward more and more government intervention into every area of economic functioning within the market. Actual regulation of the capitalist economy has little to do with what is finally arrived at through the policies employed and are only the medium by which greater intervention becomes necessary. The theoretical work of Keynes, as well as others, cannot be underestimated and should not be confused in judging cause and effect; hearkening back to the words of Strachey, there is an inherent process within the mechanics of Keynesian Economics that promotes the implementation of Socialist Political Economics, thus replacing free market capitalism with government intervention. Generally speaking, while there appear to be contradictions engendered by the apparent growth in economic production during the various business cycles, particularly in the boom portions of those business cycles, the gradual increase of the degenerative effects associated with the bust of the booms cycle provided the material foundation for increasing government activity and intervention in the markets.
In looking at Keynesian Economic Theory, it should be apparent that Keynes has become on of the central forces behind government regulation of the markets and the increasing degree of intervention into those markets. The ideological importance of this aspect of Keynesian Theory is the basis of the growing role of government and has not only transformed capitalism, but has basically negated the effects of capital markets in favor of government control. In this respect, which is of extreme importance, Keynesian Economic Theory has provided the government with a central function within the economy. Since his theories tend to implement the need for such intervention, the question then arises concerning the effects such intervention have on the lives of the individual and the degree to which the individual becomes dependent on the government for his economic, and therefore social well-being?
Keynes’ criticism of unregulated capitalism rest primarily in his belief that social stability could not be achieved or maintained and therefore he saw the need of a highly centralized economic plan be administered by government intervention; thus, this belief lead him to a rather pragmatic-utilitarian view of the necessity of ad hoc government intervention in economic markets. This idea or belief however, did not originate from Keynes’ himself, but came from the Fabian Essays, published in 1889, by Sydney Webb, Bernard Shaw and others. Like Marx, the Fabians, including Keynes, believed that it was necessary for governments to gain control over capital markets, the monetary systems, credit and the implementation of a progressive income tax system to achieve the goals of Socialism. Indeed, Keynes, in pure Fabian form, thought that it was absolutely necessary to end laissez-faire policies in order to end capitalism, for without free markets; capitalism would then be prone to crisis after crisis under the guise highly regulated economy while retaining the capitalist label. Free market capitalism died in the Twentieth Century, thanks in a large part to the policies promoted by Keynesian Economics.
President Bush recently said: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Now, if you look at that quote from President Bush in the light of Keynes’ General Theory, you will find a more eloquent statement bearing the same meaning: “Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism, I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.”
Bush, in short, reiterated what Keynes stated, advocating further government intervention into the markets to save the capitalist system; nothing could be further from the truth however. As Keynes stated: “Our final task might be to select those variables which can be deliberately controlled or managed by central authority in the kind of system in which we actually live.” In concrete terms, Bush, like Keynes, meant that there is a necessity to select as many variables within the economic system as possible, at this point, to achieve effective and applicable controls in preserving the existing economic form while allowing for even greater government management. Under the continuing guise of preserving the capitalist market system, Keynes, and it appears that Bush, believed that the operations of the government intervention would be crucial to “save the free market system”, even though it involves a complete abandonment of free market principles, essentially destroying the last remnants of free market capitalism.
For decades the American People, and even most of our politicians, have lived under the illusion that our economic system has retained its free market capitalist nature; the fact is that there has been a hybrid system that is so far removed from free market principles that it can no longer be defined as a free market. Keynes’ views have prevailed and today we see that the government has taken an extensive and growing responsibility over economic functions in our society.
Like Keynes, most of our politicians believe that the government must not only regulate the economy to provide price stability and “full” employment, but that it is also obliged to promote any and all measures that generate sufficient investments to compensate for the shortfall of private capital in our system due to various economic drains brought about by the policies of Keynesian. Thus, in the Keynesian view, the government should employ what amounts to national income to achieve various economic and corresponding social goals; this is exactly what has taken place in this country over the last seventy years as we have seen the rise of the government as the central component of our economic system and not merely an external force. Essentially, the government has promoted what amounts to “welfare capitalism”, which in realistic terms is nothing more than Socialism where a government “supra-class” of administrators who manage the economic and social welfare of all members of our society regardless of their social status or economic position.
It should be evident in our current state of government involvement in economic relationships in the market that Keynesian theories have become the primary driving force behind economic and monetary policies in this country. Additionally, it is evident that the degree of income redistribution that takes place in this country has proved effective in producing a stratified social structure where a hierarchy of wealth is concentrated in those who are politically connected and enjoy the benefits of those connections with government. Along with the upward redistribution of income, Keynes proposed that the wages of the masses be reduced covertly through the government-regulated process of inflation or monetary depreciation.
Keynes stated: “A movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be much more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices.” Thus, as we have seen, particularly since 1971, the government use of controlled inflation would allow for an increase in the nominal wages or face value wages of workers while actually affecting a simultaneous reduction in real wages or purchase value wages through price inflation. This would not only achieve he goal of providing government with needed revenues for its expansion, but would continue the illusion that more money is being put into the pockets of the working man and it would also allow for the illusion of greater profits for business; the reality, of course, is just the opposite. Regarding this effect Keynes stated: ”It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that it is necessary.”
Essentially, Keynes proposed that the government, and only the government is responsible for the determination of the rate of reward a person can achieve by productivity; thus the functions of market forces are no longer determinant factors. One should make no mistake about what has taken place in this country or in the effect of Keynesian Economics have had on the entire economic structure upon which this country depends. There has been a very definite and intentional control over income policies in this country, all under the disguise of ensuring price stability and social equity. What most people don’t understand is that these policies create numerous distortions within the economy and have untold unintended consequences that promote the need for ever-increasing government intervention. Consequently, there has been a gradual move toward government-centered arrangements within the economy, and those developments have rapidly increased over the last couple of decades which have essentially lead to the creation of a type of Socialist Corporatism, which, by the way, is not inconsistent with the ideals of Fabian Socialism.
Keynesian Economic Theory, in particular The General Theory, paved the way for the ideology that free market capitalism is incapable of being maintained and could not regulate itself or function without government intervention. It is therefore claimed that government intervention and the ancillary spending that always accompanies that intervention is the essential precondition to achieve stability in the market, the consequences of this intervention is, of course, the increased provisions of Socialization, not only in the market, but also in society. The most prominent feature of Keynesian political thought has come in the form of the drastic rise of government spending, but apparently the vast array of economic experts fail to see or choose to ignore is that such intervention and spending is nothing less than a massive drain on surplus value and capital, thus the effects will always aggravate and dislocate the market. Keynesian-based economic and political policy made such spending acceptable and generally respectable due to the fact that such spending is presented as a means of economic growth and stabilization however, the history of the last fifty years has shown that is not the case.
The creation of a mixed economy the standard of Fabian Socialistic thinking, which Keynes obviously adhered to in his theories, can be found in the Fabian Political & Economic Policy is the foundation of the Socialist agenda: "The individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be FORCED BY EVENTS to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. What is required, if with only a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed STATUTORY CORPORATIONS and PUBLIC UTILITY BODIES and OF LAND TRUSTS."
Historically, all public expenditures were considered basically economically unproductive however, as Keynesian Economics gained widespread acceptance, the historical and accurate historical view has been pushed out of the way by the proposition that not only was such spending beneficial, but that the massive levels of debt to fund such expenditures was of no consequence. According to the theory, at least, the vast amount of borrowed funds would be recouped by higher taxation on the production stimulated through such expenditures, of course that is not quite how it worked out.
Alvin Hansen, one of the leading Keynesian Economist during the 1960’s stated: “the long-standing lesson of history that growth requires an increase in money, credit and debt. And in the public-private economy of today, a well-balanced growth suggests an increase of debt at all levels – business debt, consumer debt, state and local debt, and federal debt.” While, on the face of it, such a statement seems to be correct, indeed there appears to be a general expansion of economic growth, but the nature of that growth should be called into question. The fact is that such an expansion, both of the money supply and credit, both of which are debt instruments, have a long-term detrimental effect in the markets, creating unhealthy distortions and eventual economic dislocations which always require an increasing degree of government intervention.
Under the prevailing winds of policy, based largely upon Keynesian thought, all government expenditures is financed through borrowing, thus pushing the growing burden into the future and thus, regardless of the political will, it will always drain future surplus value, or as we have seen over the last few years, hope-for surplus value. The reality of our economy, disguised as capitalism, still produces surplus value in the private sector only to have it drained away by the public sector. The resources devoted to the public sector always come at the expense of the private sector. The presumption that government spending can actually be a means to the creation of productive and therefore surplus value is to indulge in an illusion, yet our politicians seek to engage in such illusions on a regular basis. Eventually however, the future becomes the present and the effects of previous economic policies, government interventions and expenditures prevail. We are seeing distortions on a number of fronts, many of which have not revealed themselves as of yet, but will press upon our economic reality in ways that the government will not be capable of providing solutions, even temporary ones.
Even Marx was well aware of the illusions behind such government expenditures: “The sum that was lent to the state no longer has any kind of existence. It was never designed to be spent as capital to be invested, and yet only by being invested as capital could it have made itself into self-maintaining value . . .. No matter how these transactions are multiplied, the capital of the national debt remains purely fictitious, and the moment these promissory notes become un-saleable, the illusion of this capital disappears.”
The charade can only be maintained as long as the growth of government expenditures is at a rate below the accumulation of capital, when the equilibrium shifts and the distortions present themselves the dislocation is no longer containable and there is a growing threat of consumption of a far greater proportion of productivity and thus the extraction of surplus value increases. The inclination of those in government however, is to increase expenditures, as we are currently witnessing; this action, particularly under the already burdened system, will only exacerbate the problems. The parasitic claims of the government continues to fasten onto flesh of this country, it lives and thrives on the backs of the people by passing the burden of debt for the various spurious programs onto the working class of this country through increasing reductions of their living standards, the depreciation of the labor value of their wages and the increase of social controls.
As with former Administrations, the new Administration will continue to press forward with exactly the same policies that created this growing and chronic economic dislocation in the first place. The point will come however, when the government must institute severe cuts in every area that it has assumed responsibility in its expansion of the welfare/warfare state. The conundrum will come when those who have lambasted free market capitalism run out of scapegoats and must admit that the malfunctioning within the economy is due to the character of the policies of government intervention and Keynesian-based economic theory.
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
