Working Towards Decline

Two happenings this week show how far we’ve traveled from reality. The vice-presidential debate and the East Coast Longshoreman Strike may have little in common, but both evidence an archaic way of thinking. The idea that we can stand in the way of progress in a way that saves everyone’s present job has never worked out in practice. Pursuing such a program with an expanding wage scale is madness.

From Diocletion’s Roman Empire to China’s Qing Dynasty, stopping time by government fiat only resulted in decline. Yet both vice presidential candidates claim they can preserve and bring back manufacturing jobs. J.D. Vance hews to Trump’s tariffs to protect otherwise unprofitable businesses. At the same time, Tim Walz would continue massive subsidies and tariffs to do the same.

The East Coast longshoreman demanded a considerable wage increase and banned further automation. With its potentially severe economic consequences, this strike is a stark reminder of the dangers of resisting technological progress. The Luddites in the U.K. in the early 19th century, who violently opposed technological change and rioted over the introduction of new machinery in the wool industry, would seem to be a strange model to follow. There appears to be a settlement with a significant wage increase, but we don’t know about automation. It’ll be interesting to see the final draft.

Both presidential tickets employ industrial policy methods of protection and subsidies, disregarding the fundamental economic concepts of “Comparative Advantage” and “Opportunity Cost.” Some countries possess advantages that enable them to produce goods more economically. Understanding these concepts is not just important; it’s empowering. It’s the key to making informed economic decisions and fostering growth.

Understanding and applying the principles of comparative advantage is crucial for economic growth; it’s a beacon of hope. Canada could grow dates in greenhouses, but countries with a favorable climate can send them to Canada at a much lower price. On the other hand, wooded Canada has lumber unavailable in date-producing desert nations. Dates for the lumber trade leave everyone with more. Adhering to these principles has allowed billions of people to live better than ever, and continuing to do so can lead to even more prosperity.

Continue reading

It Gets Worse

It’s hard to believe, but both presidential campaigns keep getting worse. Have we learned anything? As I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” settled societies were run by the ruling elites for their benefit, while the masses were left to subsistence. Kings and emperors picked winners and losers. It was better to align with the ruling powers than rock the boat with innovation.

From the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt to Louis the Fourteenth in France, rulers dictated who got what. However, the fifteenth century ushered in changes undermining elite arbitrary authority, resulting in markets, not masters dictating actions. More people participated in making, trading, and benefitting from new goods used in innovative ways. A new system replaced the old great for the few but bare sustenance for most with “More” for those allowed to partake.

Moral philosophers began to take notice. The author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” proposed that markets, rather than potentates, making decisions on prices and what to produce and sell would bring widespread benefits. The “invisible Hand” of markets was the moral way to “The Wealth of Nations.” At the time, no one thought of this Scotsman as an “economist” because, in retrospect, he was the father of this “science.” He and his contemporaries thought of Adam Smith only as a philosopher.

Continue reading