The Long Journey to “More”

Allow People To Interact

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

All the noise about the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lopping off unneeded chunks of the Federal Government and the horrified response by the big government-favoring progressive left got me thinking about what the purpose of Government is in the modern world and how we can match it to those goals.

My take on the question will shock and horrify others, but hear me out. The purpose of modern Government is to provide the structure for free and open markets to thrive. These markets are another way of saying people can freely and safely interact.

Markets are the best way to allocate resources to better the human condition. Nothing, including the various forms of socialism, mercantilism, feudalism, or tribalism, has lifted humanity more than free and open markets. If you don’t accept this, I urge you to read “Super Abundance.” As the structures necessary for markets to thrive expanded, humanity’s living standards have dramatically improved, even as its numbers have grown.

The reasons for market superiority aren’t hard to find. Billions of people using the latest information will arrive at better decisions and make them quicker than the relatively few elites in Government. In the information age, this advantage only grows.

Markets are the most democratic form of choice. People vote for their preferences. These are hard choices because their money is involved rather than theoretical. We are all human, so markets make mistakes momentarily but self-correct as new information enters the continuous exchange. We invest funds to receive a proper return. If the profit potential leaves, so do we.

Continue reading →

Donald the Great?

Dave Davis Policy, The Long Journey to "More", The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

Having already written about some things to look for in the New Year, I’d like to take a new approach. Donald Trump’s talk about making Canafda the 51st state, buying Greenland, and repossessing the Panama Canal caused me to think of how leaders who see themselves as bigger than life seem focused on the past rather than charting a future that benefits those they lead.

Our major adversaries, Russia, Iran, and China, are centered on recreating old empires. Turkey may be poised to join this group. Putin in Russia regrets the loss of the Empire, created through centuries of Russian expansion culminating in the vast Soviet Empire, which collapsed under Cold War pressure. Setting up stooges in some adjoining territories and continuing to attack Ukraine, the Russian strongman is expending blood and treasure on a grand scale to reestablish the Empire.

The Histories of Empires from the Persian through the Sasanian, centered in Iran, fuel the Mullahs’ desire to widen their reach across the Middle East. They may, as Shites, even see themselves as rightful ones to bring back the Moslem Empire of the early caliphs.

No nation has a more extended History of Empire than China, going at least back to the Shang Dynasty (221 B.C.). Before the communists, the Ming Dynasty (1368 to 1644) was the last to attempt expansion, sending fleets and armies to gain control of both the land and maritime Silk Roads. However, reversals such as the Tummu crisis caused China to look inward. While Chinese fleets reached the east coast of Africa in the 15th century, they never rounded the Cape of Good Hope. Later in the century, the Portuguese did, and the direction of the history of the world changed. I covered this outcome in my “The 15th Century Came and nothing would ever be the same” post in “The Long Journey to More” series.

Xi Jinping seems intent on succeeding where the Ming Dynasty failed. His Belt & Road Initiative intends to recreate the land and maritime Silk Roads under Chinese control.

Continue reading →

Is Trump Looking for The Union Label?

Dave Davis Commentary, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized , , , ,

Trump’s choice of Oregon’s U.S. Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer as labor secretary got me thinking about organized Labor. The prospective Secretary voted for the highly favorable organized Labor PRO Act. This wide-ranging labor law would rein in the so-called gig economy and boost workers’ organizing rights. Along with Donald Trump inviting the Teamster union’s president to speak at the Republican convention, you have a picture of a party looking to wear the “union label.”

This turn of events made me wonder if unions are a force for good or politized entities that do more harm than good. I grew up in organized Labor’s heyday, the 1940s and ’50s, when 1 in 3 belonged. Unions enjoyed their highest favorability. One not so happy with organized Labor was my father, a part owner in a Chicago manufacturing company; he had to deal with wage demands, work rules, and strikes in his industry and those in the supply chain.

A successful furniture company listed on the American Stock Exchange was in an industry that had it with unions and moving to “right-to-work” states. My father felt the company should follow and head south, but his partners refused. Fearing the worst, he sold out his shares and comfortably retired. A decade later, the company was bankrupt. It could not compete against lower labor costs and looser work rules that allowed automation.

The migration from the unionized north had already been underway long before China opened up, so they’re not to blame. Once the class of the world, our most heavily unionized industries lost out. We used to think of U.S. steel and General Motors the way we think of Apple and Microsoft today. The government baled out G.M. and U.S. Steel for sale, maybe to a Japanese company.

Continue reading →

Who Is The Opposite of Biden?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized

The liberalization occurring in recent centuries has lifted humanity to levels never imagined before the 15th century, even though the world’s population has exploded. Massively expanded trade and connected literate minds, bringing innovations to solve problems and improve our lives.

Yet the president of the United States is talking up “Bidenomics,” which is another way to say “industrial policy.” The nations taking the path of government directing their economies have not only failed to produce but have diminished the lives of their citizens. The USSR, Mao’s China, Cuba, and Venezuela attest to this policy’s utter failure. As it retreats from liberalizing, Xi’s China will join them shortly. 

The ancient Elite combination of government, church, and military, having the rest working for their benefit, is reflected in the modern Democratic Party. Government employees, with the clergy, morphed into academics and the priests of the Green Religion—the military run by political generals. Joining them are the crony capitalists currying government favors. 

One might hope Republicans have the desire for a government serving all citizens. A nation that maintains the legal framework safely, allowing innovation and trade. Policies that favor free markets and free trade, with a bureaucracy dedicated to getting things done rather than expanding their power. Cost-benefit analysis keeping expenditures in line. A foreign policy that curbs those still believing they can gain by taking things from others.

Continue reading →

 Turning Their Backs On Progress

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized

In the past few posts, I sought to draw attention to drift, even on the right to a state-directed economy. This tendency is more pronounced on the left, but this idea is gaining currency. In their genius, government elites will provide better outcomes than market-based solutions. Rather than greedy profiteers who only think about their bottom line making decisions, we accommodate all stakeholders. 

On the surface, this sounds plausible. The best and the brightest of our society are more intelligent than we are, so these “expers” are bound to make better decisions. 

As I pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” elites’ rule was how we organized settled societies worldwide for thousands of years. A usually hereditary group, generally less than ten percent, controlled the rest of the population. The government, clergy, and military resided here. The masses mostly toiled at subsistence, any surpluses extracted for the benefit of the ruling class. The rest of the people will get their reward in the next world.

As bad as this sounds to us today, this organization made sense. Knowledge of when and what to plant, how to build and maintain irrigation systems, and a host of other things needed exchangeable knowledge, but the costs of literacy severely limited its availability. Putting marks on clay tablets and preserving them is time-consuming. Writing with ink on parchment consumed the lives of many monks—the scarcity of things available to read limited literacy to a few.

Further, the educated class had little incentive to change a system benefitting them with the best things available. Change might upset their position. For this reason, innovation of any kind was suspect and often opposed.

Continue reading →