Today is not 1938

Here is a letter I wrote to the NY Times suggesting we don't repeat the "stimulus" that was WWII.

Comparing today’s situation to the environment of 1938 is a dangerous thing to do (1938 in 2010, Sept. 5) especially when the prescribed cure for the economy is spending on a scale not seen since World War II.

Does Dr. Krugman suggest that we forcefully conscript millions of able-bodied individuals into government service? Does he imply that the home front was a lovely place to live with its rationing and shortages? Should we today, as a nation, resort to these same policies?

If we would only take a look at what actually occurred during WWII (a noble cause no doubt) we would see what occurred was vast hardship to overcome dictatorships that wished to dominate the world, a sacrifice of wealth and prosperity for years to ensure possibilities for decades. Today is not 1938.

Sincerely,

Campbell Fritschner

Bosses

The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses.

--LvM--

Von Mises

Imagine is the first in a series of posts of me quoting my favorite Mises. Thanks should be given to the people at mises.org and Mark Thornton for this compilation that I am ripping from.

Imagine

Imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme... there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want. Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities. Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens... The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom. Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes... The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage. Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens.

--Ludwig von Mises--

Most Economists

NPR reports this morning on my drive to work that most (they may have even said virtually all) economists agree that government spending is good for the economy and that such spending is what lifted us out of the Great Depression...

"History teaches that temporary surges in government spending give people money that, for the most part, they save or use to reduce debt, rather than setting in motion an upward spiral of income, expenditure, real output, and employment, as envisioned by John Maynard Keynes, the British economist whose theory spurred massive government interventions in the economy from the 1930s onward.

"History also teaches that government “emergency” spending tends to fatten the coffers of the politically connected. Thus, much of the so-called stimulus spending has served only to increase the pay and benefits of government employees, transferring income from the private sector to the government sector, and reward groups, such as the United Auto Workers and low-income home buyers, for their support of the Obama administration."

From Robert Higgs at the Christian Science Monitor

Interns

Our almighty government now sees fit to make more decisions for youngsters (not youth, but young adults) by cracking down on unpaid interns. This January, the Labor Department released internship guidelines, saying that unpaid internships at for-profit companies can only be offered if you derive no immediate benefit from their work.

Many people derive great work experience and valuable networking opportunities from unpaid internships. Instituting these changes would create another barrier to employment of youth (we already have the minimum wage). This is just another example of how good intentions often backfire especially when there is no mechanism for weeding out what works and what doesn't.

Follow this link for more.

House Bill 43

House Bill 43 is another bill that is encroaching on personal liberties. This bill would prohibit driving while texting. Here is a letter I wrote to the Kernel about this subject:

The Kentucky Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. The measure, House Bill 43, has already passed the House by a vote of 80-16. The Interim Joint Committee on Transportation amended the bill to also ban the use of personal communication devices by persons under the age of 18.

It is a terrible idea to text while driving. It is irresponsible and dangerous to not only yourself, but to others as well. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated in 2002 that 2,600 people die each year because of cell phone use.

Drivers should look to limit their distractions as much as possible because about 80% of accidents are caused by distracted driving.

But does this mean we need to ban all "distractions" while operating a motor vehicle? If we follow this logic, there should be no stereos in cars, no passengers allowed, no eating, no coffee, no makeup, no smoking, nothing but driving while operating a motor vehicle.

And why stop while a vehicle is moving. I can think of many things that are harmful to users and potentially dangerous for non-participants. Or why don't we allow people to make their own choices.

I definitely shouldn't text while driving, but I know people who can enter a number and send a text without ever looking at their phone. Some people are perfectly competent driving while texting.

But my phone is also my mp3 player and radio. How can we enforce this when technologies are combining all devices into one? Would I be pulled over for using my radio just because it is the same device as my phone?

Perhaps we should let people make their own choices and live with the consequences including legal action and civil suits instead of attempting to outlaw activities that are dangerous for some people to do, but not all.

Sincerely,
Campbell Fritschner