Another aspect of protectionism that flies under the radar screen of most Americans is its ripple effect on the American taxpayer. One of the fundamental insights shared by economist Ludwig von Mises is that government interference with free markets causes maladjustments and unpleasant side effects that create demands for further intervention. For example, when taxpayers are taxed to subsidize farmers, they take a second financial hit by paying above-market prices for goods that include the subsidized commodities. Higher prices impose hardships on poorer Americans, so our “compassionate” government hits the taxpayer a third time by issuing food stamps to poorer Americans. When guaranteed prices stimulate overproduction, the taxpayer is hit a fourth time to build and maintain storage facilities for the surplus. Often, Uncle Sam “compassionately” donates surplus supplies to poorer countries. The huge influx of supply depresses market prices for those commodities in the recipient country, squeezing profits from local producers, keeping them poor and jeopardizing their economic viability.[12] Our “compassionate” government hits the American taxpayer a fifth time to give foreign aid to those poor countries. Ironically, some of the leaders of countries that have received foreign aid assert that instead of aid, all they need is for the United States and other developed countries to open their markets to exports from developing countries so that the people there could earn what they need.[13] Apparently, our government is not yet that “compassionate,” choosing to retain import quotas to benefit privileged domestic producers....Globalization in a Nutshell, Mark Hendrickson, Front Page Magazine, 4/4/2007
This is a perfect summary if what happens when politics is about feeling good instead of about doing good, of the substitution of irrational reaction for reason. American jobs are not saved by protectionism. Nor is the environment improved by suppressing economic development in the rest of the world.
Another common environmentalist myth is that economic development leads to environmental degradation. The fact is that wealthier societies are cleaner societies.According to exhaustive studies by such eminent institutions as the World Health Organization and Princeton University, once societies attain a certain level of economic development (somewhere between $4,000 and $8,000 per capita, depending on the specific pollutant) pollution progressively declines.[15] There is a simple, logical explanation for this phenomenon: Human priorities shift according to how wealthy people are. The priorities of the poor in developing countries are the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, health care and education. Once those priorities have been addressed, people become more ready to tackle pollution. The wealthier a country’s population, the more anti-pollution measures it can afford. Thus, environmentalists who hope to curtail and clean up pollutants should favor globalization rather than oppose it, because globalization will hasten the economic development that generates the wealth to pay for environmental improvements....(Globalization...continued)
The trouble with lies, whether about the environment or about the war in Iraq, which Democrats repeat endlessly, is that they're built on what people are feeling at the time. Feeling, as any researcher can tell you, may be marvelous, but it's also treacherous. We feel good when we discover something. We also can feel good when we do something absolutely informed by any fact. The Left-wing control of MSM makes this much easier. Democrats depend upon the plausibility of lies in the media. And, if the reporters lie, and we react to what they write and say, we're falling for a political gambit that depends on us to react stupidly instead of to research and think.
Read Hendickson's whole piece for a refresher.
Luther
No comments:
Post a Comment