| Tuesday, August
12, 2003
Got a good bit done on our novel yesterday. The
following was going to be a response to a letter but it just grew. It
rambles and I am sure has some holes in the presentation, but it's what I
have for the morning. Creative
Destruction and the Tax Payer
In the 1940's Schumpeter (Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy) concluded that capitalism was doomed, not
because it wouldn't work, not because it wasn't the best purely economic
system for allocation of resources, but because it was incompatible with
democracy. Democracies wouldn't vote for the measures needed to retain
capitalism. They'd go for socialism.
The problem with socialism is that a little
goes a long way, and the tendency is to vote in more and more government
control in the name of serving the people; but (like most large
bureaucratic enterprises including most of the US and State governments),
the real purpose is to serve the government employees who are never laid
off and never have their salaries reduced no matter what economic problems
their regulations cause. Since that centralization and regulation
inevitably causes more and worse economic disasters, eventually the
democratic elements are forgotten. The people may want to change this
system, but there are too many entrenched interests who want to keep it.
There follows naked rule by the Party and its leaders, which may result in
dictatorship, or in rule by a nomenklatura. All this was forseen and
forseeable, and it all happened, not in the USSR (where the dictatorship
came in with the Bolsheviks) but in much of Europe. We haven't quite got
there in the US, although California comes close.
David McCord Wright thought that anti-trust
coupled with some restraint of government growth might save capitalism.
Anti-trust would ensure at least some competition, and the federal
structure might ensure some competition among governments and prevent
their inevitable growth to the point of choking up everything.
Schumpeter was the creator of the concept of
"creative destruction" which is always used now as an argument
in favor of enduring the miseries caused by capitalism's fluctuations (but
which is never to be applied to government bureaus which are never
destroyed or diminished).
I don't know if there is any remedy. If you
want a picture of the future, look at California: broke, bankrupt, trying
to bail itself out with taxes on cigarettes and "the wealthy" as
businesses and wealth flee the state, and the economic base falls. All
this supposedly in the name of the "will of the people". Of
course the people have many times willed that illegal immigration be
curbed and state benefits not be extended to illegals, only to be told by
their masters that they have no right to do any such thing. The people
willed that the state be color-blind, but that didn't happen. The people
willed there be a cap on property taxes, but that too is being undermined.
One problem is that there is no "tax
payers union" with any clout. The Prison Guards can donate a few tens
of thousands to the right politicians and get a 35% increase in pay even
though the state is going broke. The Teacher Unions can get and more more
money for education without any kind of demand for performance or
demonstration of results. (Indeed, the worse the schools, the more this is
used as "evidence" of the need for more money for Teacher Union
employees.) Public Service Employees, Trial Lawyers, all these groups get
their tenure and raises and their legislation, but there is never the
opportunity to say that it's time for some creative destruction in
government. It is never time to say that providing government services to
illegal immigrants makes no sense when you are flat broke. It is never
time to legislate that there be some sanity in the lawsuit business (there
was a bit of sanity in that direction but it was done by defeating a
lawyer proposition on referendum: a holding action).
There is no organization that speaks for
"the people" because while the Parties are supposed to be that
instrument, they have been bought and paid for by various groups which
raise and contribute money selectively.
In theory an astute enough political
organization devoted to creative destruction of state mechanisms could be
devised. It would raise money and make donations, substantial donations,
to politicians who do NOT give raises to public employees and create more
bureaus and so forth. It would be expensive, but really, given the payoff
to taxpayers, it would be pretty cheap. A few hundred dollars a year from
every fed up taxpayer, applied not through the general party mechanism --
those are already wholly owned subsidiaries of well established spender
groups -- but directly in the form of selective campaign contributions
might actually turn California, and the nation, around.
But it would have to be organized. Who would
do that, and what would prevent it from capture?
Alas, most such groups soon become
converted to the liberal philosophy of wanting more government. There's a
problem, pass a law, and create another bureaucracy to enforce it. Make
the law complicated so there is work for lawyers. Campaign finance reform,
anyone?
It has long been known that any
organization not explicitly conservative will always be captured by
liberals and operated to their benefit: and what I have in mind
wouldn't be a "conservative action group" but rather one
dedicated to making government work better. Is there a single bureau,
whether or not it does useful work, that could not be improved by an
intelligent cut of 10% in its staff? But that isn't a conservative
proposition. Conservatives want to strengthen some parts of government and
eliminate others, and prefer self-government to "professionals".
The Tax Payer Union I have in mind
wouldn't go anywhere near that far. It would just try to stop the growth
of government and counter the various trends pushing for more government
employment at higher pay; would encourage a bit of creative destruction in
the public employment industry.
Ah well. We can dream.
And
See Mail.
==================
Yesterday
I sent a worm warning to all subscribers. If
you subscribe and didn't get it, CHECK badmail.
I had a minor glitch in the mail system and I MAY HAVE AN OLD ADDRESS. Please
send me: when and how subscribed; old mail
address; new mail address. BE SURE TO INDICATE which is the currently
correct address, particularly if you send it from yet a third address, or
from the old one! Be explicit and talk baby talk. It makes my life
simpler. I am trying to make my list work properly preparatory to
going over to Outlook 2003. A thought
I had: Rome held consular
elections all through the Empire right up to Romulus Augustulus. New
Consuls took office each year. The Emperor was only Commander in Chief, a
sort of cabinet officer. He stayed on. And the Roman Constitution
continued. Of course you didn't run for Consul without the invitation of
the Emperor. Is there any implication for the United States? I
know no more about this than what you find here: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/30/155105 We
got a lot of work done today and went to the Hollywood Bowl concert. It's
late and bed time.
Current Mail
TOP |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
