|
 It would appear from recent events that many folks no longer understand the basic economic fact that every transaction is based upon the exchange of fair value. Any attempt to short circuit the exchange of value will reverberate throughout the entire system. If one side of the transaction is cheated of value it will work against the functioning of the economic engine. Just like putting sugar in a gas tank, unfair exchanges will ultimately degrade the overall performance of the motor, whether that motor be mechanical or economic in nature.
There is an old saying that if you see a man on a mountain, you know he didn't fall there. We could expand this somewhat to say if you see a wealthy man, you know that he has engaged in transactions that have resulted in the accumulation of economic value. You also know that he has managed his resources in such a way that he has retained that value for himself and his loved ones.
Contrary to the beliefs of many, including Dick Gephart, life is not a lottery. There are principles at work which result in the rise or fall of personal fortunes which can only be short-circuited in the short term.
What determines whether an exchange is fair? Every transaction must be determined by the parties to that transaction. It would not be fair for instance if a football player negotiated in good faith with multiple teams for the best offer he could get only to discover after accepting an offer that he was to be paid a lesser sum.
Government intervention in the basic unit of economic exchange is like trying to run your car or truck on a mixture of gas and water. You may be relieved to have more fuel, but the value of that fuel decreases to the degree that it has been diluted with water. This explains why being in a higher tax bracket decreases the value of your income, and also why it acts as an economic disincentive.
Money is a symbol of value. It has no value in and of itself. A twenty dollar bill may seem relatively insignificant to a person with many twenty dollar bills, but to a person who has none, it may seem to be of great worth.
Indeed, that same twenty dollar bill may have greater or lesser value to the same person, at different times and under different circumstances.
Ultimately, to have outside parties intervene in a private economic exchange is morally questionable, unless for instance the parties are children or incapable of making their own judgments about monetary value. Therefore, for a government to intervene in the economic affairs of its citizenry is especially questionable, because what recourse do the affected parties have if they disagree with the exchange?
I don't know of any person who doesn't need or want more money. Whether it be for health care as in the current topic of the day, or for clothing, or for clunkers, or for any of an infinite variety of needs, wants, and concerns. We are an infinite need chasing a finite resource: money. (As an aside, who has a monopoly on money? The Federal Reserve.) So we will always, and have always, have wants and needs that exceeded the money supply. And we have more or less recognized that it is only fair for the two parties to a transaction to agree to the basic premise of the transaction they are engaged in.
I'm afraid that having an interloper into that basic and fundamental economic freedom of choice is not what our founders had in mind when they had the Boston Tea Party.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
