Frederic Bastiat and Us. Please click here and scroll to the bottom of the site to add a comment.

It’s raining dollars!  What would Frederic Bastiat have to say about this if he could speak to us from 1848?


As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness – Judge Robert Bork

Hail 1840s French Liberalism!

Frederic Bastiat


We interrupt our regular programming.  The President has just banned windows in order to benefit candle makers; candle production, he says, will stimulate the economy as long as candles aren’t melted by sunlight.  The administration also announces it will nationalize candle manufacturing, allow greedy wax suppliers only 10% of the money they are owed by the candle makers, plus grant a 30% share of Acme Candles, Inc.  to the UCMDWU (United Candle Mold Delivery Workers’ Union).   New York Times White House correspondent asks Press Secretary Robert Gibbs what most enchanted the President before he was blessed with this economic epiphany.

OK, I’ve got the facetiousness out of my system.  I wish I could take credit for this prescient concept.  I’ll admit to only my personal sarcasm in tying the philosophy of that remarkably witty proponent of freedom and liberty: Frederic Bastiat, (see link to Wikipedia entries from the pictures on the sidebar) to our current state of affairs.  Frederic Bastiat was a member of what was known as the French Liberal School in the 1840s (liberal as in the classical/original free market definition), warning of the folly of government intervention in the marketplace.  His parable of a fictitious petition by candle makers to the French government to eliminate windows in order to prevent candles from melting – thereby increasing economic prosperity by insuring the success of the candle industry (at the expense of the window industry…oops) – is a hilarious anecdote.  It also unfortunately illustrates the genesis of the president’s belief system.

Obviously above, I make reference to the bailout of GM, the perversion of the rule of law in throwing Chrysler bond holders to the wolves, and the artificial propping up of the UAW rather than normal bankruptcy pecking order.  Bastiat’s fable of altruistic but ultimately damaging marketplace intervention, is echoed consistently by the current administration’s adherence to this paradigm of unlimited spending by fiat justified by its immediate/short term effects on various and sundry interest groups.  In fact, Friedrich Hayek (see my previous two posts) said in a review of Bastiat that, according to 1930s economist John Maynard Keynes, the assumption of a multiplier effect (simply meaning a belief that the government can stimulate the economy by spending, producing a return greater than the cost of the stimulus; thereby increasing employment) on general economic prosperity would precisely mimic the argument of the candle makers!

Cash for clunkers (and maybe the upcoming Stimulus II cash for “cluckers” chicken farm bailout?) would most certainly fit neatly into these fallacies: money will do more good in the hands of the government, and it is the duty of government  to see that all get what they “deserve”.

Lastly, Frederic Bastiat’s landmark book: The Law has remarkable parallels to the economically damaging entitlement philosophies of the current congressional majority.  For example Bastiat says in the section The Results of Legal Plunder, “No society can exist unless the laws are respectable to a certain degree.  The safest ways to make laws respected is to make them respectable.”  This quote illustrates the current congress’s path towards a society in which greater than 50% of workers pay no taxes, and receive payments in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Therefore, this non-tax paying majority – the receivers of public services and governmental largess – are able to award themselves through the ballot ever increasing free goods and services from the minority: the tax payers/suppliers of public services and governmental largess.  I see no end to this increase in receivers, to include the resulting unconstructive inertia towards manufactured dependence.

So to bring my polemic to a close, I quote Bastiat one more time: “Legal plunder is identified as “… the law takes from some persons [what] belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong…The person who profits from this law… will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry…”

— Or nationality, ethnicity, income demographic, religion, color, blue collar, white collar, government employee, Woodstock museum, first time home buyer, union member, sexual preference, illegal immigrant, home in foreclosure, Wall St., Main St., small business, large business, self esteem damaging tatoo removers (I didn’t make this one up: see   http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/63697.html), “green” energy producer, municipality, farmer, auto parts supplier, environmentalist, “too big to fail” bank and insurance companies, student, teacher, cop, mechanic, ethanol producer, the bicycle spoke hooker-uppers’ guild, donut shop owners’ amalgamated, and last but not least……….Acme Candles, Inc.

Comments on the blog con or pro most welcome.

About these ads

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://libertythruknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/frederic-bastiat-and-us-please-click-here-and-scroll-to-the-bottom-of-the-site-to-add-a-comment/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Sorry to say that I agree with the notion that govt. should not encroach upon the economy, but I doubt if it’s going to happen. The left doesn’t really believe that regulation and taxation will dampen entrepreneurship and the populace wants to be protected from vicissitudes be they economic, environmental or warlike.

    The populace may be right. We have created a very rich nation and our people live ever more in cities and ever less in the countryside. Cities encourage dependency on government.Police to protect us, schools to educate us, bureaus to build streets and bridges and provide sustenance to the needy. Our current economic system provides the wealth that makes this system possible.

    It is not apparent that we slowly kill the golden egg laying goose.

    This does not mean we should not fight for conservative principles. But recognize that over the long pull it’s a losing battle.

  2. Thanks for the interesting and informative post on Bastiat. I look forward to reading your future commentary.

  3. Awesome – kinda cool issue. I’m going to write about it too!

    • Thanks AgobFloloGops.
      Comments added to the blog always welcome.

  4. Good post, great looking weblog, added it to my favs!

    • Thanks AllemyGadly! Glad you like my blog. Please spread the link around to anyone you want. This is not a for profit blog. Strictly for discussion. Comments always welcome.
      Joe

  5. As always, I enjoy reading Joe’s works and the depth of his knowledge and research. And I certainly agree with his conclusions. What needs to be addressed is the rationale for Obama and his crew for their actions.

    I am convinced that Obama is a pawn of George Soros and other radicals whose goal is to systematically destroy our bill of rights and move us toward Marxism.

    History has shown the normal progression is by destroying the 2nd amendment, then the 1st amendment and then the rest will fall quite easily.

  6. Friedrich Von Hayek, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics twenty years ago touched on the risks of credit creation in a speech as he accepted the prize.

    He said beware the nostrum of printing money to boost aggregate demand. Such a policy is of course inflationary, but the problem goes deeper than that. Money printing distorts prices and wages, the traffic signals of a market economy.

    Responding to the wrong signals-spending on red and saving on green- people take the wrong jobs and capital flows into the wrong channels.

  7. It’s a matter of degree and a matter of direction. Some transfers fund a worthwhile safety net for the truly unfortunate. Beyond that the unfairness increases as redistribution goes to the undeserving and to political favorites.

    The impact of all redistribution on the incentive to invest may the most important consideration.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 163 other followers

%d bloggers like this: