View 270 August 11 - 17, 2003 (original) (raw)
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.
==================
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.