Tag Archive for economic consumption model

Bass-Ackwards‏ (You betcha)

Has anyone heard the new mantra from the right regarding the “American Dream?” It sounds as though someone’s trying to rev up the old “consumption” model again.

This in part is likely in my view to provoke new socioeconomic divisions before long. It goes like this: We’re not going to allow anyone to get in the way of the American Dream. I can very easily visualize helpless regulators, planning bodies, boards of county supervisors, etc., rolling over quickly at nearly any “proposal” To do otherwise would be to threaten or to outright deprive jobs in the jurisdiction du jour. I’d tread very carefully were I they, or if I were to consider taking the hearing microphone and objecting – even questioning – capitalism’s latest get-rich-quick scheme (THEY get rich; not us).

I may not be effective at it, but I tend to be a conspiracy theorist. I try to hang facts on those conspiracy bones whenever I can, but I believe the lack of hiring in the USA might be intentional, aimed first at foisting a new conservative majority on the country and as many other places as possible. And if the “cost of doing business” (to whom, I’m not sure) fails to decline precipitously, if tax rates don’t follow interest rates to or toward zero – especially for those whose incomes are larger than the national budget of Romania – then the HR door will remain closed. It’s as though business intends to hold its breath until WE all turn blue.

Why is this apparent practice so difficult to justify? Because of the justification offered for it already. It seems businesses refuse to hire until they see “more demand;” it’s don’t-shoot-‘til-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes, or the green of their money. From where is any demand likely to come if people aren’t being hired and if wages stay at mid-1990s levels? Especially with government demand now to be squeezed by the new wild children on the block, or the “Hill.” Chicken, meet egg. But hold on!

Don’t tell me: business doesn’t want to take a risk. What !?!?! Isn’t that what entrepreneurs get paid for? Risk is why they can command high returns. Economists remind us of it all the time. Economists also point out that entrepreneurial return is a RESIDUAL. That means these people are supposed to get paid AFTER every other factor of production – you know, land, LABOR, and capital. Izzatso?

Not today. Entrepreneurship wants its return first, and guaranteed. It seems those who claim to be willing to move money (that’s what “entrepreneurship” actually means) value power over progress. And that’s precisely why we should be calling all of this segment to task.
The “anti’s” may have scored in the most recent round, but it’s a fifteen-rounder, for the championship. If the American public sits still long enough, waiting for a decision, what’s to say the referee won’t help the other guy achieve a knockout? Now, there’s a calming concept.