Event presented by: Show-Me Institute, National Review Institute, 97.1 FM Talk, and Show-Me Opportunity

Listen to the presentation as a podcast:

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post WATCH: Stopping America’s Slide to Socialism with Kevin A. Hassett appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mackey spoke highly of capitalism, saying, “We can’t throw out capitalism and replace it with socialism—that’ll be a disaster! Socialism has been tried 42 times in the last 100 years and 42 failures. It doesn’t work.” Mackey believes that capitalism is “the greatest thing that humanity’s ever done,” crediting capitalism with increases in life expectancy, earnings, and literacy rates. Mackey recognizes that it’s entrepreneurs who have taken scientific discoveries and operationalized them to make our lives better. He points out that “businesspeople are not the villains of the story; they’re the heroes of the story. The entrepreneurs are the ones that create great progress.”

While noting that society needs rules and regulations, he says, “[Y]ou can overly regulate business so it’s hard to do business and then the whole society becomes less wealthy and less prosperous.” This is a point often made by Show-Me Institute researchers; burdensome regulations make it harder to work and make a living, which can have negative effects on economic growth.

I can’t speak to all the actions of Whole Foods or other interviews by Mackey, but it was certainly refreshing and interesting to hear the CEO of a major company supporting markets in this instance. I tend to agree with Mackey’s statements, but you can listen here and decide for yourself.

The post Whole Foods CEO Speaks on Markets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

This quote by Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus, Human Action, is a plea to the common citizen to learn economics. At first glance, it might seem exaggerated. Is economics really relevant to everybody and everything? And is it really the essence of civilization?

In fact, it is. As Mises argues elsewhere in the book, society is simply the cooperative interaction of different individuals. But how does this cooperative interaction come to be? Human nature is selfish, so why don’t we just fight each other to get the things we want?

The answer, according to Mises, is the division of labor. By specializing in tasks and exchanging goods, each individual actually benefits more in the long run than if they were to fight each other. Division of labor is cooperation. This is the foundation of economics. It’s also the foundation of civilization.

However, the fact that the division of labor is more productive is not, in itself, sufficient for cooperation to take place. Each individual must also recognize this fact. Without understanding the benefits of cooperation, individuals would give in to their short-term instinct of plunder. Thankfully, humans are rational beings and eventually realized that cooperation and exchange are better than barbarism.

However, cooperation through the division of labor—the foundation of civilization—is constantly under attack by socialists who want to dismantle the market system. This market system based on property rights is nothing but the extension of the division of labor and exchange.

This is why Mises makes his plea for everyone to learn economics. If people lose this insight about the benefits of cooperation and give into short-term instincts for plunder and control, our society would suffer greatly.

Mises summed it up nicely in Human Action:

Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.” Giving into rhetoric without examining economics yourself is “tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s domination.

Don’t let the political winds sway you. Don’t let ideas go unchallenged. Learn economics yourself. The teachings of Ludwig von Mises are a great place to start.

The post Why Everyone Should Care About Economics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With Super Sunday just around corner, we will cite the Apple commercial that introduced the Apple Macintosh personal computer in January 1984. It had the punch line: “You’ll see why 1984 won’t be like Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

That was an allusion to the dystopian future described in George Orwell’s book, 1984. The ad opens with a lone woman on the run. She bursts into an auditorium, where Big Brother—speaking not in person, but from a towering television screen—is haranguing a frightened mass of people. Then, spinning like a top, she hurls a sledgehammer at the figure on the screen. It flies high and right. Big Brother is silenced. The voice-over followed.

In this 60-second spot that aired during Super Bowl XVIII, the first Macintosh ad captured the one thing that an all-powerful or monolithic state cannot easily afford to tolerate. That is, any real expression of individual freedom and initiative.

We believe that is a timely message not just on the eve of another Super Bowl, but still more in the context of the current debate over economic and public policies.

Following a long period of stagnation, the U.S. economy has come roaring back to life. We now have full employment, a booming stock market, and rising wages for most workers, including the lowest paid.

How did that happen? Fast answer: Over the past three years, the free market became a whole lot freer.

In its first year in office, the current administration delivered on its promise of sweeping regulatory relief. Suddenly, the regulatory state, which had expanded by leaps and bounds during the previous administration, began to contract . . . and that has continued, as a result of major changes in policy and direction at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other arms of government.

Then came the biggest tax cuts and tax reforms since the Reagan era. With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the administration lowered income taxes across the board and left more money in the pockets of individuals and business entities alike.

So, we are now living in the best of times economically. How could anyone argue otherwise? But they can—and are. Never mind what the numbers say.

Among leaders on the Left, there is a broad consensus that we are living not in the best of times, but in the most desperate of times—almost as if we were back in the early years of the Great Depression, when industrial production plunged, unemployment soared, and more than a quarter of the population was without any income at all.

In the badly mistaken belief that capitalism and free enterprise have run amok, they are promoting economic policies and ideas that are diametrically opposed to those that got us where we are today.

With little disagreement between them, these same leaders want free college, free health care for all, universal child care, and the banning of fossil fuels as part of a many-splendored Green New Deal—and they don’t appear to care what anything costs or what the adverse impact may be on ordinary people.

Apart from the astronomically high price tags associated with all of these programs—which would quickly bring the economy to a shuddering halt if any serious attempt were made to implement them—it is worth thinking about the underlying message that the leaders who are espousing this great agglomeration of multi-trillion-dollar programs want to send to the American people.

The real take-away message comes down to this:

·         “If you or any of your children want to go to college, don’t worry about being able to afford the college tuition. We’ll take care of the problem for you.”

·         “If you’re worried about health care, don’t think you have to buy health insurance or do anything else. We’ll take care of you.”

·         “Got young children at home and want to go to work? We’ll take care of the kids, too.”

If all that sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is too good to be true. Someone has to pay for college tuition—and all the other freebies—and that can only mean higher taxes on working people at all levels of income.

As George Orwell, the author of 1984, understood very well, a free people who stop taking care of themselves and rely on the state to do everything for them make a very bad bargain. It is one of the insights you find on almost every page of his book.

When people cease to make their own plans—and trust government to make decisions for them in more and more areas of their lives—they commit the error of failing to make full use of their capacities as individual human beings. In failing to make the most of their own gifts and talents, and their own dreams and aspirations, they sell themselves short . . . and lead less-fulfilling lives.

How prophetic was Orwell’s book? Not that this was the author’s intention, but how well did the book foretell the future of socialism in his native country—this being Britain in the first few years after World War II?

The British elections in mid-1945 marked a major turning point—not only sweeping Winston Churchill and a Tory-led government out of office, but also standing as an unquestioned affirmation of the desire of most of the British electorate to bring a new government to power that was fully committed to socialism.

So how did things work out in Britain during the three and a half decades when socialism, as opposed to free-market capitalism, was the prevailing mode of government—a period lasting from 1945 to 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power?

Socialist Britain did not become a police state. But it did undergo a metamorphosis. It changed from a powerful and dynamic country into the perennial “sick man of Europe,” reeling from one financial crisis to another in a sustained period of economic stagnation and decline. It became a country obsessed with issues of job security and income redistribution as different groups competed with one another in trying to wring more favors out of an increasingly improvident state. There was little or no new business formation—none of the spark provided by people like Steve Jobs and products like the first Macintosh computer.

Even the Labor Party could see the futility of its centralized, interventionist approach. Jim Callaghan, the last Labor prime minister before Thatcher, admitted in Parliament: “Let me say that of course there has been a fall in peoples’ standard of life. It has fallen this year and will fall again next year.”

Fortunately, Thatcher supplied the leadership that was necessary to pull Britain out of the decades-long decline that began with the wrong turn that it took at the end of World War II.

Is there any possibility that we as a country could make the same mistake that Britain made in 1945?

The danger is there. It is time to throw another hammer—or sledge-hammer—into the works of another historic wrong turn—this time involving the United States.

This does not require heroic action on the part of a solitary individual. But it does require a willingness on the part of many people to play the same kind of role within their own group of friends and relatives that Thatcher played in Britain—in stressing the paramount importance of individual freedom and initiative in securing the future we want for ourselves and future generations.

The post Is There a 1984 in Our Future? A Super Bowl Reflection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In one of the more memorable exchanges of the interview, Donahue asks Friedman a question many are still asking today:

When you see around the globe, the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. When you see so few “haves” and so many “have-nots.” When you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Friedman’s reply has become standard among capitalists like me. “Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?”

Friedman continued:

You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.

The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

In the years since the Donahue interview, the free enterprise system has continued to improve the lot of ordinary people. Yet today, possibly more than in Friedman’s day, Americans are showing support for socialist policies. Shockingly, a 2019 Gallup poll found that four out of ten Americans supported some form of socialism.

What happened? How can socialism be gaining popularity even as confidence in capitalism wanes? The problem is that a defense of capitalism like Friedman’s satisfies the head but not the heart. When people—especially young people—look around the world today, many of them see it as Donahue described it. As a result, they question the morality of capitalism.

Enter Arthur Brooks.

Brooks is the past president of the American Enterprise Institute, a social scientist, a former university professor, and a former professional French horn player. Yes, you read that right. Brooks has written best-selling books such as The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America and Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt.

Recently, Brooks released a documentary, The Pursuit, which is now available on Netflix.

In it, he asks, “From 1970 until today, the percentage of the world’s population living at starvation’s door has decreased by 80 percent. Two billion people have been pulled out of starvation level poverty. What did that?”

His answer is the same as Friedman’s—free enterprise. Indeed, the messages of Free to Choose and The Pursuit are essentially the same: No other system has succeeded like free enterprise in allowing people to direct their own destiny and pull themselves out of poverty.

The key difference between the two is that when Brooks discusses how to help the most disadvantaged, it’s clear that he’s making not just an intellectual argument but also an emotional appeal. He cares about human flourishing.  From the very beginning, he frames the argument for capitalism as a moral one, saying “the point of the American experience is basically a moral consensus that our society should push opportunity to the people who need it most. This is our pursuit, and it’s predicated on two fundamental moral principles: human dignity and human potential.” Brooks shows us this as he walks the streets of India, once a scene of abject poverty during the days of democratic socialism. Now, after free enterprise has been released, we see progress. Hindol Sengupta, editor-at-large of Fortune India, says it like this, “Capitalism allows human beings to choose an action to fulfill their own destiny. . . . Forget per-capita GDP—we didn’t even have per-capita hope.”  

None of this is to say Friedman did not care about the poor, but his arguments can come across as those of an academic. They are for the head. Through The Pursuit, Brooks provides the answer for the heart.

Add The Pursuit to your list of required viewing. Go watch it . . . after you watch the Friedman interview.

The post Movie Review: The Pursuit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, who is Ludwig von Mises and why would a donor believe it so important that students learn about him?

To answer this question, I reached out to Dr. G.P. Manish, a Mises Institute fellow and my Austrian economics professor at Troy University. He is well-versed in all things Mises and he laid out some of the main points.

Ludwig von Mises was an economist who supported free markets and economic liberty. He is most famous for fighting against socialism. He also used economic concepts to explain decision-making in non-market areas like households and government. For example, we think about opportunity cost when we decide to spend money on a sandwich instead of a salad, but we can also use this thinking when deciding whether to spend time cleaning or watching TV.

In general, Austrian economics takes a realistic view of the market. It allows for uncertainty, mistakes, and innovation while other economic theories assume these factors away.

After this mini-lesson, I asked Dr. Manish if he thinks that students should learn about Mises. Here is his response:  

I believe it is vital that students learn about the ideas of Mises. Doing so will give them a window into a different way of thinking about economic phenomena and will make them question the mainstream, Neoclassical tradition.

. . .

The free market, as Mises emphasizes time and again, benefits not only a narrow elite, but all groups in society, including the least well-off. This can be eye-opening in a world where capitalism and free markets are often charged with benefiting the rich while leaving the less fortunate masses behind.

. . .

A market economy is not devoid of error: entrepreneurs earn both profits and losses. But it is the only economic system where the production decisions of entrepreneurs and the resulting allocation of resources can be coordinated with the preferences of consumers. This vital lesson can be learnt only by studying the works of Mises.

As I’ve said before, markets work and Mises clearly understood that. The issue at Mizzou will be decided in the courts, but regardless of the outcome, many students would benefit from learning about this important thinker.

Dr. G.P. Manish is the BB&T Professor of Economic Freedom and a member of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. 

The post Should Students Learn Mises? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To be sure, there were different degrees of socialism. The totalitarian socialism of Mao and the Soviet Union killed people, ruined economies, and snuffed out freedoms critical to both political and personal life. The democratic socialism common in the West, softer and therefore less destructive, merely specialized in overregulating the private economy and extreme redistribution of wealth.

But even in the West, socialism manifestly failed. The democratic socialism of Great Britain reduced that country from a leading economic power to the “sick man of Europe,” and was firmly rejected by British voters during the Thatcher years.

Unfortunately, socialism has come slouching back onto our college campuses, settling itself comfortably among the students. A 2015 Reason-Rupe poll showed that 58 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds viewed socialism favorably. By contrast, only 28 percent of seniors ages 65 and above were favorable toward socialism. Several other polls say the same thing: A majority of young adults support socialism, and in fact prefer it to capitalism.

To older adults, this fact probably seems disturbing and inexplicable. How could anyone support a philosophy that has spawned evils ranging from economic stagnation to mass killing? Speaking as a 21-year-old college student, I believe that the explanation boils down to two things—discontent and ignorance. Most of today’s college students grew up during the Great Recession. They are graduating with large debts and, for many, bleak prospects for employment. They feel cheated, and believe that something is deeply wrong with our current system. Since that system is capitalist, they see socialism as an alternative.

At the same time, however, most young adults misunderstand socialism. In one study only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as a government-managed economy. And who can blame them for their ignorance, considering what they’ve learned—or haven’t learned—in the classroom? In my experience, professors may not espouse socialism, but they seldom challenge its tenets. Most of my history classes in college have focused on the many ways America has victimized the poor and downtrodden. Professors equated capitalism with imperialism while failing to even mention the evils committed by totalitarian socialist countries or the economic destructiveness of democratic socialism. One of my professors dismissed the atrocities committed under Mao Zedong’s regime by saying, “While there were certainly many failures with Mao’s reign, during his rule China’s literacy rate went up, as did migration to cities.”

“Failures”—that is how my professor referred to the 45 million who starved to death under Mao.

I believe this same indifference to truth is what turned so many college students into enthusiastic supporters of Bernie Sanders during the last presidential campaign, giving him more youth votes in the primary than Clinton and Trump combined. While Sanders is no totalitarian, he certainly supports the same democratic socialism that emaciated Britain in the postwar years. Students loved the promises he made (free college, free healthcare, and forgiveness of debt) and were perfectly willing to believe that big and benevolent government could make almost anything “free” simply by raising taxes on the very rich.

It should be said that this support for socialism isn’t necessarily permanent. Studies find that support for socialism drops after college and goes down as people earn higher salaries. Young people aren’t stupid; they are just young, and some economic truths cannot be truly appreciated until experienced.

Of course, some college students don’t make it easier for themselves. Many refuse to listen to conservative voices and cannot stand correction—or argument. Nothing strengthens a lie quite like an echo chamber, so the lie of socialism has grown into a powerful force on campus that threatens competing (and worthier) ideas. Yes, most students are just young and will outgrow their revolutionary fervor. But right now, students are being cheated out of the best opportunity most will ever have to test competing political and economic ideas against one another. And until our colleges have the courage to break through the echo chamber, students will get—at best—only half the education they’re paying for.

The post Socialism: The Slouching Beast on our Campuses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last night was obviously Snowmaggedon, and I hope everyone is staying safe out there as some of the roads are still nasty. The previous night, Wednesday, we hosted the second Show-Me Institute Saint Louis Book Club meeting of the year. We discussed the classic The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek. The central theme of the book is that fascism is a natural outgrowth of socialist central planning. Hayek’s desperate wish was to warn the western nations, especially England and the U.S., not to pursue the path of central planning. Hayek believed that a descent into fascism was more likely than it seemed to his audience: the citizens of non-fascist western nations in 1944.

But all that just makes the book sound like a dated warning against something no one really advocates anymore, right? Well, the book has staying power because of two timeless features which are perhaps separate sides of the same coin: Hayek explains why the price system not only works, but is the best system possible for maximizing individual welfare while also making a strong case for individual liberty and limited government, which Hayek calls (using the connotation of his time), liberalism.

It was a wonderful meeting and a rousing discussion. Book club meetings start at 7 p.m. and usually wrap up about 8:30 or 9 p.m. But Wednesday’s meeting did not end until shortly after 9:30 p.m. — we all had so much to discuss. Here are some of the topics and ideas we discussed:

• Whether a person’s concept of what is possible constrains their action.
• The important distinction between freedom and power: what it is and why it is important that they not be confused.
• This wonderful quote from Adam Smith (introduced roughly by Hayek): “[the regimentation of economic life puts governments in a position where] to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
• Where Hayek drew the line on the proper role of government and how that might undermine his overall message of liberty.
• Whether market competition is inherently violent (hint: it is not).
• Whether a legal system is necessary for competition, and David Friedman’s “the discipline of constant dealings.”
• The contradiction and ugliness of “competitive socialism.”
• An extended interlude about “Little House on the Prairie.”

The reading for next month is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, another classic. Friedman is an economics and law professor with a Ph.D. in physics, and the son of free-market titan Milton Friedman. From the Amazon description: “This book argues the case for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation, with little or no government.” I am looking forward to some excellent discussion on this one at our March meeting, so please join us if you can (date of meeting to be announced, check here).

The post February Book Club Recap – The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Life’s not supposed to be fair,” my father said. “Stop
measuring,” my mother said. “You’re not supposed to measure.”

But this was before a new obsession in American political
life: rising concern over the issue of fairness. Many people have
started to measure – and they are plainly envious of the good
fortune of others. To borrow the words of a Japanese proverb, they
have come to think that the nail that stands up is the nail that should
be hammered down.

That was the spirit of the Occupy movement – on Wall
Street, in Oakland, and many places in between, including four
Missouri cities. Those claiming to be the 99 percent railed
incessantly against the 1 percent. In setting out to make a public
nuisance of themselves, the pity-me protest brigades let the world
know how fed up they are with the unfairness of life.

President Barack Obama has nursed and cultivated this same
sense of grievance. In a speech in Osawatomie, Kan., he invoked
fairness no fewer than 16 times. In one staccato burst, he called for
“a tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share . . .
(and) rebuilding the economy based on fair play, a fair shot and a
fair share.”

How fair is that?

Let me put the question another way.

How fair is it to fritter away hundreds of millions of dollars
of taxpayers’ money on green energy companies like Solyndra
which have gone bankrupt?

How fair is it to launch a trillion dollar “stimulus” program that
actually depressed the economy – leaving unemployment higher than it
was before – and then turn around and demand a whole new stimulus
program?

How fair is it to go on the greatest federal spending spree in
modern history – quadrupling the size of the annual deficit and raising
serious concerns about the creditworthiness of the United States – and
then go about the country accusing critics of your profligacy as being
solely concerned with promoting the interests of “millionaires and
billionaires”?

How fair is it to use hard times to promote the politics of envy –
when it is your own reckless rhetoric that has done so much to unsettle the
business community and your own policies that have prevented a normal
cyclic recovery from occurring?

The president and others calling for more “fairness” through
bigger government and higher levels of spending seem to have little or no
concern at how their policies and ideas are eroding economic and political
freedoms.

• They are calling for the government’s right to claim more of
  your income to spend any way the government sees fit (e.g., on
  silly “job creation” programs that wind up going bust and
  leaving taxpayers on the hook).
• They are using “fairness” and allegations of corporate greed
  and irresponsibility in order to justify a vast expansion in
  regulation and government control over business and
  commerce.
• And everywhere – including here in Missouri – they aim to
  enlarge the public sector, even though that drains money and
  jobs out of the private sector.

No one would pretend that the ultimate goal of free-market
capitalism is equal outcomes for different people, regardless of talent,
effort, or sheer luck. That is a socialist agenda. But neither is the free
market – as our president suggests – a place where the rich prey
ceaselessly upon the poor and “everyone is on their own.” That is an
absurd caricature of free enterprise and more than 200 years of American
history.

In fact, the essence of free-market capitalism is voluntary
exchange for mutual benefit. People satisfy their own needs by competing
to satisfy the needs of others.

My parents understood that. They expected their children to
compete and enjoy the benefits of living in a country that has produced
unparalleled wealth and opportunity for its people. But they did not want
us to go about our lives with misplaced expectations of fairness – or to fall
prey to the diseases of envy and self-pity.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me
Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post Freedom vs. Fairness: Will America Succumb to the Politics of Envy? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Provocative enough for your tastes? Do you vehemently disagree? Is Bastiat a kook? Come join us for spirited discussion and snacks this Wednesday; Bastiat is our topic.

The Show-Me Institute’s Book Club meets the second Wednesday of each month at our headquarters, located at 4512 West Pine Blvd. in the Central West End. Meetings begin at 7 p.m. and typically last until 8:30 or so. See link for more information. 

Please bring a friend. Hope to see you there.

The post Show-Me Institute Book Club: Join Us This Wednesday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a long-time teacher of economics in Missouri, I believe that Hayek’s words are just as apt today as they were 50 years ago. Here we live in a country that has been singularly successful both in creating material prosperity and enabling more and more people to enjoy the blessings of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet despite this unrivaled record of success, many of those entrusted with the education of our children regard capitalism, the engine of the nation’s prosperity, not as something to be celebrated, but as something deplorable or shameful.

I have seen first-hand how an aversion to free markets, competition, and economic logic permeates our classrooms. To cite one example, a good friend of mine once invited a professor of education to collaborate in designing a summer curriculum on entrepreneurship for disadvantaged youth in Saint Louis. The professor, a prominent member of his university’s college of education, was aghast. He told my friend that entrepreneurship is the very antithesis of education and the teaching of good citizenship. And over the past 12 years, that is the world view that he has inculcated in hundreds if not thousands of future teachers at all levels of education.

Consider the daughter of my friend. Her teacher, while discussing the environment and the spotted owl, denounced the meat and fur industries. The daughter, parroting her teacher, told her mother that the government should ban both industries. Noticing the obvious slant to the curriculum, mom challenged her daughter to compare the benefits and costs, including the loss of jobs and income. Daughter, resorting to ideological labels in lieu of reasoned response (a sure sign of educational neglect), declared her mother a “capitalist pig.”

Why this bias? Could it be that educators identify entrepreneurial free markets as win-lose zero sum confrontations? One’s gain must be another’s loss? Perhaps they imagine the violent overthrow of kind cooperation in favor of brutal aggression and profit. Self-esteem is sacrificed to the survival of the fittest. The very thought, however fanciful, rattles the nerves of educators.

Market competition, in fact, brings people together through voluntary exchange. You satisfy your own needs by discovering ways to satisfy the needs of others. This evolution from self-sufficient individuals to interdependent beings elevates social cooperation from a generous impulse to the essential linchpin supporting our means of survival. This should warm the hearts of educators everywhere.

Now consider what happens when governments replace entrepreneurs in picking the winners and losers. For example, analyze the multitude of tax credits that Missouri government gives away to insiders with lobbyists. Here, taxpayers are coerced into financing the Taj Mahals of wellconnected developers. Far from a cooperative game of willing participants, this is favoritism for the few, which eliminates competition and promotes waste.

Competition and free markets are the best assurances of social cooperation and peaceful coexistence. That is what we should be teaching our children. Even more, it is what we should be teaching our teachers.

Gregory Aubuchon is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post Reappraising – and Praising – Capitalism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights includes:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

The framers of the Constitution saw the need for a Bill of Rights as a means of protecting the people from an overbearing and oppressive government. They drafted a bill of negative liberties, or protections that define what the government cannot do. They gave no guarantee of housing, food, or employment because they saw the dangers that the notion of positive rights pose as a potential threat to liberty — the idea that, just by being born, people are entitled for others to provide them a comfortable life.

Because the government does not produce any wealth, even the most basic obligation to one individual must be paid for by taking from another. In order to guarantee one person a profitable job, a decent home, or adequate food, wealth must first be taken from those who have rightfully earned it, infringing on their liberty to do as they wish with their own money.

Unfortunate individuals who receive assistance do not receive those benefits because it is their inalienable right, but because it is irresponsible to let them starve or freeze in the streets. No one is entitled to anything that is not their own, no matter how basic of a necessity; however, it is the responsible duty of able individuals to help those in need through their charitable impulses.

Although the end result may be the same, in terms of the needy receiving necessary aid, there is a stark distinction between an unalienable right to something and the responsibility of an able man to care for their fellow man. The difference can be summed up in one word: liberty. The liberty of every individual to do as he pleases with his own money and resources. Although it is repulsive — and, at the very least, irresponsible — for an able individual to let those less fortunate starve, I have no right to infringe upon their liberty to do as they please with their own money.

This is by no means an argument against all government assistance. Obviously, the government cannot allow its citizens to starve or children to live on the streets, homeless. Rather, my objection is with the larger issue of entitlements justified through a notion of positive rights. When fully implemented positive rights lead to socialism, a concept that has been tried and found ineffective at growing economies, raising standards of living, or even helping the very poor. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The post An Economic Bill of Rights? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.