It's easy to be depressed when you look around and see the state of monetary affairs, writes Christopher Mayer. But as many historical vignettes show, we have one great force in our favor. The inability of governments to maintain fixed exchange rates in the face of opposing market forces is proof of the impotency government managers.
Since the early 17th century, American governments (colonial, state, and federal) have tried and failed to restart business expansions by reflation, writes Scott Trask. But new money in the system is no substitute for genuine production. It is too early to see the long-run consequences of the Bush-Greenspan reflation, but if the past is any guide we can expect the next decade to more resemble the 1970s than the 1990s.
Overall economic efficiency does not concern GDP growth per se, writes DW MacKenzie. It concerns the satisfaction of consumer demand. Increased military spending does not directly satisfy consumer demand. Nor do increased deficits and monetary stimulation substitute for market forces. They only set in motion another round of cyclical economic trends.
Many economists have suggested that the weakening in the US dollar could actually be good for the economy—since a weaker dollar will boost manufacturing production, which in turn will lift employment and all this will set in motion economic growth. Nonsense, says Frank Shostak: the emergence of competitive devaluations is the surest way of destroying the market economy and plunging the world into a period of crisis.
The consultation of oracles, a practice long thought dead, continues on today in many forms, perhaps in a more subtle and less institutionalized than during antiquity, but powerfully nonetheless. The head of the Fed, writes Christopher Mayer, is a good example.
Government has total power to make and break businessmen. This state of affairs compels businessmen, especially large, successful businessmen, to pay regular extortion money to politicians and government officials. They have to pay bribes, in the form of "campaign contributions" and "donations," to various pressure-group organizations in order not to be harmed or altogether destroyed.
To listen to mainstream economists, including Wall Street analysts, what destruction Isabel wrought is really a bonanza for the economy. Maybe, if we are really desperate to improve the local economies of our cities and towns, what all of us ought to do is bulldoze our property to the ground. Think of all the jobs that will be created when it becomes necessary to rebuild our houses, workplaces, downtowns, shopping malls and other centers of commerce from scratch.
The neoconservative clique and their partners have deepened the state's commitment to empire, but Republicans hold no monopoly on building empire in the recent history of our country. The Clinton regime, now seemingly forgotten except as a kind of Camelot II by the American Left, featured most of the same patterns of imperial conquest and domestic repression.
H. Scott Trask sums it up: on the one hand, they believed in fractional-reserve banking, generally following Adam Smith's currency and banking theories. On the other hand, they were resolutely opposed to government-issued paper money, fiat money, legal tender laws, inconvertible paper currency, and land banks. On the question of a national bank, they were divided.
On Labor Day, Americans honor the often incredible contributions of its working men and women.
