Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

The Four Ways Capitalism Makes Us All Better People.

/in , /by

The left wants young people to believe that free market capitalism is an exploitative and corrupting system. This despite the fact that capitalism has dramatically and universally raised living standards for the economic citizens of developed countries. Today, everyone enjoys comforts and conveniences that are far more elevated than the life of kings in the past. Pshaw! says the left. Comfort is beside the point. Capitalism makes us bad people: winners and losers, exploiters and exploited in a moral war of all against all.

That argument is 400 years old, articulated by Thomas Hobbes, who got his politics right (the political class has always been immoral and exploitative and still is) but his economics wrong. We look to Adam Smith for the right economic perspective, which he achieved by combining interpersonal morality and economic self-interest, an insightful synthesis that the left still doesn’t understand, and never will. Smith shows us how capitalism ennobles human nature and makes us better people.

His starting point is that people are innately collaborative. He uses the word “sympathy” to describe the common understanding we all have of each other’s needs and wants, and the sensitivity we feel to others’ successes and disappointments. The first line of The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, although expressed in 18th Century language that sounds strange to our ears, is mind-opening:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

He recognizes the cynicism of the left (“How selfish soever man may be supposed”) and substitutes the happier perspective of empathy.

From the foundation of natural empathy, Smith builds, in Theory of Moral Sentiments and his later work, Wealth Of Nations, a system of moral capitalism that improves not just standards of living, but also the quality of life. There are four pillars to his argument that capitalism ennobles our nature:

  • Empathy develops a social conscience – what Smith calls “the impartial spectator, a guardian of correct individual behavior – within each of us, and capitalism universalizes the impartial spectator in the structure of the market.
  • Capitalism simultaneously develops self-command and humanity within us.
  • Capitalism nurtures virtue in people, and Smith provides plenty of examples.
  • Capitalism develops a set of general rules of conduct – the kind that F.A. Hayek later called for us all to focus on – that lead to moral activity.

Smith’s capitalism is a society of entrepreneurship, non-violence, voluntary exchange, limited government, collaboration, interconnectedness and spontaneous order. It rests on just property rights and the right to be free from aggression by other people, including other people in the guise of government. It is a society of contract, because the right of ownership includes the right to exchange, and the free market system is the sum total of all voluntary, and therefore mutually beneficial, exchanges. The only way to get ahead is by economic means: production and exchange in accordance with the needs of other people. The more value other people place on an individual’s productive activity, the greater that individual’s monetary gain. This income allows him or her to expand production and co-operate with more people in exchange. Individuals earn higher income when they are more productive to others. In capitalism, wealth is created and, once in existence, it is channeled into more of the activities that are most highly valued by society.

The opposite society, according to Smith, is the society of status. In such a society, all people are not extended equal rights. Some – including those who call themselves the State or the Government – are given superior rights, leaving all others with inferior rights. The former gain wealth by the political means.

How does capitalism produce a society of empathy, humanity and virtue? Smith explains the concept of the impartial spectator to guide us.

The impartial spectator is the creature of the entrepreneur’s greatest attribute: what Smith calls sympathy and we call empathy – the sense of fellow-feeling that gives us the ability to understand, share and respond to the needs of others. It’s a kind of imagined switching of roles. We put ourselves in the other’s case, as Smith phrases it. This sympathy has its greatest strength when it is mutual. It forms bonds between people. It gives rise to virtuous actions. It promotes the “harmony of society”.

Each of us has an impartial spectator inside. This spectator does the role-switching for us, and guides us to gain the voluntary co-operation of the other party with whom we are exchanging. Buyers and sellers come together on an agreed exchange at an agreed price such that each feels a benefit, and each feels good that the other has benefited.

The market is the sum of all participants’ evaluation of all others’ activities. It is the external impartial spectator – not the one that’s inside each one of us, but a summation 0f the empathy in all economic exchanges. The market guides us all, impartially, to the right behavior. Any intervention in this impartial guidance – by governments for example – produces disorder and prevents the impartial spectator from developing.

The impartial spectator, both internal and external, results in what Smith called “amiable virtues” such as self-command and humanity. Empathy gives rise to:

“that great discipline….: a regard to the sentiments of the real or supposed spectator of our conduct.”

Those engaged in business, says Smith, “never dare to forget for one moment the judgment which the impartial spectator would pass upon his sentiments and conduct”.

Capitalism provides the environment necessary for the development of the empathic virtues. These virtues are unique to capitalism: the system where an individual can further his or her goals by furthering the goals of others. Each exchange in the system of free voluntary markets gives benefit to both parties. The individual engaged in exchange must exercise the self-command that results in trust and respect, to enable exchange to continue into the future. Kindness is a mutual advantage, so capitalism tends to spread beneficence. Capitalism develops virtue. Virtue produces prosperity. Wealth goes to the virtuous, and others, aspiring to wealth, follow the virtuous example of the capitalist.

To read more, see this paper by Dr. Jeffery Herbener, Chairman of the Economics Department at Grove City College: An Integration of The Wealth of Nations with The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

 

 

This Restaurant Helps Former Felons by Giving Them Jobs

/in /by

Securing employment is one of the biggest issues facing returning citizens exiting the prison system today. But unfortunately, our broken justice system does little to prepare incarcerated individuals for the world that is waiting for them on the outside. And without a job, it becomes all too easy to fall back on the same old habits that landed someone behind bars, to begin with.

Luckily, where the government has failed the free market is stepping in to help provide second chances to those who need them most.

Enlightened Capitalism

According to the research firm Technomic, MOD Pizza is one of the fastest growing restaurant chains today. In about seven years, the company has expanded from five restaurants in the Washington area to 367 locations across 28 states and the United Kingdom. And already this year, the company has experienced a growth rate of 81%. But one of the secrets to MOD’s success may be surprising. Several years ago, it changed its hiring policy to include an often neglected portion of the U.S. population. And this decision has made all the difference.

Speaking of the business she co-founded with her husband Scott, Ally Svenson said:

“We have no interest in just building another fast-casual pizza business. We’re building a business platform to make positive social impacts.” And this is exactly what they have done. MOD has made it a routine practice to hire returning citizens who are leaving the penal system and are looking for work.

Years ago, the couple began paying attention to data that showed that former convicts were ideal employees. Anxious to stay out of prison and empowered by the ability to earn an income, formerly incarcerated employees are especially motivated. And since we still live in a world where many employers ask prospective workers to check a box if they have ever been convicted of a felony, a company’s willingness to hire returning citizens yields extremely loyal employees.

When Tony D’Aloia received his first paycheck from MOD he was overcome with emotion. His $800 check was more money than he had earned since before he went to prison for five years for conspiracy to distribute ecstasy. When he had first started at MOD in 2011, he was less than thrilled. He had been willing to accept a job as a dishwasher, but he wasn’t necessarily happy about it, though he was relieved to have a source of steady income.  

Not only was the company unconcerned with his criminal record, but they were also willing to offer him benefits and a 401(K). And while dishwashing wasn’t the most glamorous of jobs, he was in no place to turn the job down. But after receiving that first check, he was filled with pride. Having endured working long hours in his holey, worn out shoes, D’Aloia took that first check and immediately bought himself a new pair, a moment he will never forget. “Life was better right then,” he said. “I could finally provide for myself.”

Within his first two years at MOD, D’Aloia was promoted three times. And his determination to succeed inspired the Svensons to refocus their company’s priorities. At first, they began hiring a few former convicts as a matter of convenience. There were a few individuals who had applied and the pair felt that it was the right thing to do. But after these “impact hires,” as they call them, began proving themselves to be motivated employees, the Svensons decided to adopt this policy as part of their business model.

Ally said, “After that first three-year period, the mission became very intentional. We started to describe our business as enlightened capitalism.”

“MODness”

In addition to hiring formerly incarcerated individuals, some of MOD’s franchises have also begun extending employment opportunities to those with Autism. Three years ago, in one of MOD’s Houston locations, a manager hired a young man with Autism to help fold boxes. Not only was the boy great at folding boxes, but he also enjoyed it. This resulted in the store hiring another employee with Autism, and then another. Now, there over 25 employees in the Houston store have Autism and are also thriving in their positions.

The company’s goal is now to spread “MODness,” what MOD insiders call happiness. In addition to its unique hiring practices, the company is also big on helping out its own. When an employee had his bike stolen, his co-workers pitched in to buy him another one. This act of “MODness” inspired the entire company to launch something called the Bridge Fund. The Bridge Fund is a private financial safety net within the company that employees can rely on in instances of emergencies.

When the company learned that one of its employees had been struggling with homelessness, it didn’t take long for it to get involved and make sure that they had secured him temporary housing. This act of kindness meant so much to the employee, he has remained a loyal worker in the years that have followed and now manages five of MOD’s locations.

While MOD Pizza hasn’t changed adopted these policies as a means of attracting consumers, it has definitely worked to this end. In fact, according to Entrepreneur Magazine, many consumers are willing to spend even more money on a product or service than they typically would if the company in question is cause-driven. This makes “enlightened capitalism” a win/win situation for all parties involved.

Not only are these returning citizens getting the rare opportunity to rebuild their lives, but the company itself is getting the opportunity to work with motivated, loyal employees. And the consumers win as well. By voting with their dollars, consumers can choose to spend their money on a company with a good cause. Capitalism might often get a bad name, but companies like MOD Pizza and many others are proving that when the free market gives back, almost everybody wins.

How an Unhackable Email Service Protects Individuals against the State

/in /by

In 2013, our concept of privacy was forever changed when Edward Snowden became a household name. Prior to the Snowden leaks, Americans were ignorant of the magnitude of data collecting that was occurring at the hands of their own government. Of course, The world had changed in the years following 9/11 as the war on terror was used to justify the institution of Patriot Act and agencies like the TSA. And while Fourth Amendment violations became rather routine for Americans, no one realized just how far the government had taken things.

But after Snowden boldly told the American people that our private emails and phone records were being routinely collected, regardless of wrongdoing or even suspicion, it was simply too much for the people to take. Individuals, it would seem, had lost the power struggle against an ever-growing government. But in the midst of this disappointing news, one man, Ladar Levison, stood up to the government and refused to turn over information regarding Snowden. And now, he’s helping to restore the balance of power between individual and state through an unhackable email service that keeps your private information out of the hands of the government.

Levison Shrugged

Prior to the leaks, Levison had created an encrypted email service called Lavabit. Snowden was a user of this service, which led to the government coming to call on Levison, demanding that he turn over all of Snowden’s correspondence. And while he was opposed to this on moral grounds, there was a bigger problem at hand. In order to hand the government all of the data on Snowden, he would also have to hand over the data if each and every one of Lavabit’s users, which accounted for over half a million people.

Levison strongly believed that his role as a service provider was to honor the privacy of his users. And the US government was asking him to violate this belief. But rather than comply with their wishes, Levison decided to follow his conscience, even if that meant losing his company. He destroyed all the servers to protect his users.

And while it is not ideal to have to destroy everything he had built, it was the right thing to do. 

Privacy has always been important to Levison, in fact, it is what led him to create Lavabit, to begin with. When Google announced the launch of Gmail in 2004, he began to be worried that the company might eventually be forced to turn over the records of their users. And his concerns were justified. The Patriot Act have the FBI the authority to demand that email providers turn over the data of their users without having to go to a judge and obtain a warrant. This was possible through something called national security letters.

To make matters worse, if any service provider attempted to alert a user when a national security letter had been issued, it would be a violation of the National Espionage Act, a serious crime. This essentially tied the hands of service providers like Levison.

But this conundrum created an opportunity for creative problem-solving.

Levison said:

“When I realized there was a very realistic probability that I could find myself choosing to go to jail rather than violate the constitution, I put on my engineering cap and tried to create a solution that would remove the service provider from the surveillance equation.”

And that solution was rooted in encrypted technology.

Levison continued:

“And that solution was the asymmetrically encrypted storage system that became the issue of the highly publicized [Snowden] case 10 years later.”

Asymmetrical encrypted might sound complicated,  but for anyone who has used bitcoin, it is similar to the public and private keys of the blockchain. As Levison explains it:  

“Asymmetric encryption is a way of describing algorithms in which you have a public key and a private key. And typically, the way these algorithms work is you can protect data with the public key and distribute said public key, but only somebody in position of the private key can decrypt that information.”

He continued:

“So the way my system worked is that when a message arrived at my server, I would immediately encrypt it with the user’s public key and only when that user logged in and provided their password could the system decrypt the private key and therefore decrypt the message on disk.”

When the feds came knocking on 2004, they demanded that Levison give them access to Snowden’s data. This would have allowed them to conduct surveillance on any Lavabit user. And when he refused, he was held in contempt of court and fined $5,000 a day. So he ended up being forced to hand it over, which is when he destroyed his business so that there was nothing to find.

While it was hard to destroy his work, he knew it was the right thing to do. And he somehow avoided any further action from the government. 

He said

“I believe privacy is an inalienable right. Even in a time of war, privacy is critical to the functioning of a free and fair democracy. How can we form our opinions if we’re constantly being judged about what we say and who we interact with?”

His quest for privacy has continued and over the last year, the service has re-launched, giving individuals the option of privacy in a climate when it seems to be disappearing. 

While it may be easy to think that the individual’s right to privacy has been squashed by the state, tech has provided us with the tools needed to fight back and protect our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. The struggle against corrupt power will be a constant tug of war, but brave, tech-savvy individuals are ensuring that the scales of power remain balanced.  

 

Economics For Individuals:In a Truly Free Market, the Consumer Is the King.

/in /by

As individuals, one of the most important roles we will ever play in the marketplace is that of the consumer. But this principle of consumer sovereignty is often lost on society today. For some reason, opponents of capitalism have adopted the belief that consumerism and the market process have made us less free, rather than granted us the opportunity to voice our opinions in the most powerful way possible.

But contrary to these beliefs, we are not slaves to a capitalist system. Instead, as consumers we are the kings of capitalism, determining which products are made and how much we are willing to pay for them.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Bureaucracy:

“The real bosses [under capitalism] 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. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors.”

Each time we open our wallets and purchase a good or service we are voting in favor of the good or service purchased. Additionally, we are sustaining the practices of the businesses and entrepreneurs who are providing us with these desirable products. It is for this very reason that consumer boycotts have been such a powerful source for change throughout time. It is not enough to simply voice our dissent against someone or something. By refusing to give monetary incentives to companies with whom we disagree, we are sending a most powerful message.

However, a producer is, of course, free to take or dismiss this market feedback. Though if he or she does simply ignore it, they might soon see their sales suffer as a result. Again, we see this happen with boycotts often. But there is so much more to consumer sovereignty than just boycotts.

By letting consumers decide which products and services are in demand, consumers are effectively the captain of the ship and help the producers direct resources to whatever goods we so choose.

As Mises writes:

“The capitalists, the enterprisers, and the farmers are instrumental in the conduct of economic affairs. They are at the helm and steer the ship. But they are not free to shape its course. They are not supreme, they are steersmen only, bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.”

Consumers > Central Planners

At the core of the principle of consumer sovereignty is the belief that consumers, and not central planners, should determine what products get made and at what price point they are sold. Only a consumer can understand her own wants and needs; yet central planners have wreaked havoc on the market process throughout time, claiming that they know better what the people want and need.

But as economist F.A. Hayek has reminded us, a body of central planners cannot possibly possess the knowledge needed to make such decisions:

“To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind…is to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world.”

Instead, a truly free market economy operates on consumer feedback. When consumers buy something they are not only supporting that product and its producers, but they are also creating jobs in a very real sense. By voting in favor of good or service, consumers are using their wallet to direct resources to that producer. The producer will then use that money to hire the employees needed to meet the production demands for the product. Obviously, higher demand for a product will result in a higher demand for workers in which case, almost everybody wins.

Contrast this system of consumer sovereignty with that of a communist state, where the government arbitrarily decides what products should be made and how many people should be employed to make them. And keep in mind, these decisions are not based on actual market interactions, but at the will of the state, in which case, everybody loses. 

In many ways, this power placed in the hands of the consumer allows them to vote with their dollars every single day of the year, instead of merely going to the polls every two years.

Robert Murphy writes:

“Mises demonstrated that, as far as political analogies go, it would be more correct to view the consumers as the citizens of a giant democracy, in which elections are held daily. Those formally ‘in charge’ of the means of production are only temporary custodians, whose position can be revoked at any time if they fail to serve the wishes of the true masters, the consumers.”

For further commentary on consumer sovereignty, enjoy this video from Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling.

The Serbian Futurist Who Showed How the World Can Be Yours

/in /by

In 1943, in a stunning example of poetic and legal justice, the United States Supreme Court vacated all of Guglielmo Marconi‘s patents for radio and awarded them to Nikola Tesla, who had died six months earlier.

However, its important to note that there is no one individual who is entitled to sole credit for the development of radio. While Tesla had invented the idea in 1892, there are others who deserve mention for laying the groundwork. German physicist Heinrich Hertz had demonstrated Ultra High Frequency (UHF) wireless transmission following mathematician James Maxwell’s proof of radio waves. Also essential was French physicist Edouard Branly‘s invention of the radio wave detector. However Tesla, with his photographic memory and ability to do integral calculus in his head, was able to transform pure science into practical applications for the benefit of mankind. That’s what entrepreneurs do.

The Showman

All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle. Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine.

In 1898, Tesla built a radio-controlled robotic boat, and from a set of controls in Madison Square Garden, he drove his boat remotely around the waters of Manhattan. The first aquatic drone. By this time, Tesla had become a veteran of public demonstrations and the practical uses for his high tech inventions. Five years earlier, at The World’s Columbian Exposition, Tesla had demonstrated the effects of both his high voltage, high frequency alternating current, as well as his wireless gas discharge lamps for every day use. This was a major breakthrough for widespread acceptance by the American public for alternating current as a safe, efficient, and reliable solution.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Exposition was the culmination of a period of intense competition and cut-throat propagandizing. It became known as the War of the Currents. Between the late 1880s and early 1890s, the alternating current (AC) Tesla Polyphase System being developed by Westinghouse Electric was in direct opposition to the direct current (DC) systems of Edison Electric Light Company. Ironically, Tesla had been in Edison’s employ in Paris starting in 1882, and then in New York City in 1884. But Tesla resigned after only six months, and the split was contentious. Tesla was convinced that his AC motor was the future of high voltage, long-distance electricity distribution, not Edison’s DC.

By resigning from Edison Machine Works to start Tesla Light and Manufacturing, Nikola Tesla was telling the world that his was a life of purpose, that he could see the future, and that he had immense confidence in his ability to realize his vision. His judgment about what the future could be was all that mattered.

The Futurist

In my youth, I was fascinated by a description of Niagara Falls, and pictured in my imagination a big wheel run by the Falls. I told my uncle that I would go to America and carry out this scheme. Thirty years later I saw my ideas carried out at Niagara and marveled at the unfathomable mystery of the mind.

It is from Europe that Tesla brought his affinity for demonstrations of electrical effects. His sense of wonder for the possibilities of electric power for human needs was inspired by his high school physics professor in Croatia. But as soon as he left Higher Real Gymnasium he contracted cholera and was bedridden for nine months. Tesla gives credit for his recovery to reading Mark Twain’s fiction. As poetic justice would have it, 25 years later Twain and Tesla became good friends, and they were both showmen.

In fact, Twain’s 1889 early sci-fi classic, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, ostensibly includes the Tesla inspired lead character, Hank Morgan. Morgan’s mission was to modernize, Americanize, and improve the lives of medieval people suffering under the repression of mysticism and anarchy. Twain transported Tesla’s vision to the past, which begs the question, what could have been?

Ironically, Tesla became a naturalized American citizen two years later, the same year that he patented the Tesla Coil,  the transformer design that was critical to delivering alternating current to all of America, and the world.

And Tesla’s ideas were not limited to visible light and the distribution of electricity. There is evidence he had experimented with X-Ray imaging before Roentgen, but perhaps his most prescient vision has to do with falling water. As a result of Tesla’s consulting work for the Niagara Cataract Construction Company, and his demonstrations at the Columbian Exposition, Westinghouse Electric was awarded the contract for the two phase AC generating system at Niagara Falls, realizing his boyhood vision.

The Producer

Invention is the most important product of man’s creative brain. The ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of human nature to human needs.

Nikola Tesla was a tireless worker; and to him, working was mostly thinking and was most rewarding. For every new  idea for an invention, he invested only mental energy until every conceivable conflict was solved. Only then, would he apply money and material to bring the invention to reality. According to Tesla, that was the big difference between him and Edison. And the object of his research was simple – the secrets of the universe. He believed they could all be found in energy, frequency, and vibration.

Besides harnessing his own human nature, Tesla harnessed nature, and transformed it. How perfectly human. His ideas transformed the kinetic energy of falling water, the thermal energy of steam, and the energy of magnetic fields into electricity and light. Besides air, earth and water, nothing is more plentiful and cheap.

In fact, this blogpost is nothing but electrons and protons transformed into photons so that your neurons can perceive and comprehend it. Nikola Tesla’s contribution to the patient pursuit of peaceful human progress is incalculable. For his application of reason to reality, his singular purpose to marry science to practical uses, and his confidence in his ability to do it, Nikola Tesla is revered as one of the Poetic Justice Warriors of Western Civilization, and deserving of our gratitude.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right, Amazon Is Using Corporate Welfare

/in /by

It’s not often that supporters of the free market find themselves agreeing with the newly elected Congresswoman and posterchild of Democratic socialism, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. However, in the wake of Amazon finally announcing which cities will house the company’s new headquarters, many market economy advocates have found themselves nodding in agreement as Ocasio-Cortez decries this as an act of corporate welfare.

Amazon’s New HQ2

For nearly a year, cities all around the country have been bending over backwards trying to convince Amazon to choose them for the company’s HQ2. Finally, less than two weeks ago, the company announced that two cities had been selected. After an intense search, Northern Virginia and New York City have been declared the winners of this contest. 

To be sure, the two new locations will result in the creation of almost 50,000 new jobs, which is a major benefit to our economy. However, while this number is certainly impressive, it comes with about $2 billion worth of tax incentives.

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has no problem spending taxpayer dollars on social programs. She does, however, see Amazon’s recent move for exactly what it is: corporate welfare at its finest. After the new HQ2 locations were announced, she took to Twitter to express her thoughts:

Her initial Twitter comment eventually evolved into a thread where she laid out her concerns that Amazon was using this opportunity as an easy access point to taxpayer dollars. She also condemned Amazon for its claim that the new headquarters will benefit the local community by creating jobs when these jobs will likely be filled by those living outside of the city.

Typically, when Ocasio-Cortez makes any sort of economic commentary, many who favor the free market have been inclined to disagree by default. After all, the young Democratic socialist has voiced extremely radical beliefs that support an ideology that has claimed far too many human lives. In fact, according to Free the People’s Matt Kibbe, socialism has claimed the lives of at least 100 million people just under the regimes of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un, and Kim Jong-il alone.

And when it comes to supporting public services, the New York City Subway system is not the most deserving recipient of tax dollars either. However, when it comes to chastising Amazon for its use of corporate welfare, the young Congresswoman-elect is absolutely correct.

The Race for Tax Incentives

When Amazon made the decision to build a second headquarters, it could have also made the decision to quietly conduct market research until it determined which city made the most sense and could meet the needs of the massive company. Instead, it chose a different route, one that resulted in pure pandemonium as cities competed to make themselves desirable to the company.

The announcement that Amazon was looking for a location for its HQ2 sent cities all around the country, and Canada, into a bit of a competitive craze. In fact, a recent article highlighting the just how absurd this competition got highlighted some of the more ridiculous perks that cities offered up to Amazon to prove their undying loyalty.

Montgomery County, Maryland took things to such extremes, its proposal for the company included over $6.5 billion in tax incentives. The incentives were included in the PRIME Act, as it was so appropriately called, and would have been the largest economic development package in the state’s history. Stonecrest, Georgia also went to extremes and in addition to tax incentives, offered to change the name of the town to “Amazon, Georgia” and offered Jeff Bezos the role of permanent town mayor. Boston, Massachusettes offered up its cities most impressive scholars to the company and even offered to pay their salaries with tax dollars.

The only sane city in the mix was Toronto, Canada, oddly enough, which according to Buzzfeed:

“…offered Amazon no incentives, in the most Canada move ever. Toby Lennox, the CEO of Toronto Global, which represents the business interests of Canadian municipalities, told the CBC, ‘Others may provide large subsidies and tax breaks, but like the Province of Ontario, we in the Toronto Region don’t want to play that game, and frankly we feel we don’t need to play that game.’”

Some cities, like Manhattan, even offered Amazon relief from zoning laws that might otherwise prevent or make it more difficult for the company to open up shop. One can only wonder how much the city might benefit from offering this perk to smaller companies who cannot afford to pay off the government in exchange for less restrictive regulatory oversight.

Amazon’s Corporate Welfare Problem

Amazon’s slow evolution into a corporate welfare queen has been a hard pill for many free market advocates to swallow. After all, the company’s entire existence was a testament to the power of the market and the process of creative destruction.

Amazon initially rose to prominence by doing what traditional bookstores did, only it did it better, completely dissolving the need for brick and mortar stores like the now-defunct Borders bookstore. Eventually, Amazon moved from books and encroached on just about every other retail category you could possibly imagine. In fact, Amazon can likely be tied to the end of Toys R Us and other retailers.

But again, this was all part of the market process and earned Amazon a lot of praise from market economy advocates. But over the years, Amazon’s market practices have dissolved and morphed into something else entirely.

As Wired reports:

“This isn’t the first cronyistic stunt Amazon has pulled. After Sen. Bernie Sanders called attention to the fact that many of Amazon’s employees relied on food stamps and other government programs to get by, the company announced it was raising its lowest wage. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos then promptly lobbied Congress to increase the federal minimum wage in an effort to force his company’s competitors, like Target and Walmart, to raise wages for their employees. In other words, Bezos attempted to use Congress as a tool to disadvantage his competitors.”

Creating new jobs for Americans is absolutely something to be praised, as is voluntarily raising the minimum wage for your employees. But the fact that Bezos has had to utilize the government, whether through lobbying Congress or using tax incentives, to bring about these changes speaks volumes.

Amazon is a rich and powerful company, it does not need taxpayer dollars to maintain its success. And yet, that is what Bezos has resorted to in his quest for continued success. And this reliance on the government has become such a problem, it has led to the unprecedented agreement between market economists and Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Economics For Individuals: Economics Is about The Individual, Not The Collective

/in /by

Despite what we may hear from mainstream economists, the study of economics is by and large for and about the individual.

Each time we are confronted with economists in the media, we are bombarded with charts and graphs and overly-complicated terms all meant to make us feel as though we need these “experts” to understand economic concepts like production, consumption, and the transfer of wealth. But this is hardly the case. And while these experts will often make us feel like the sky is falling unless we follow their advice, much of this is just a sign of elitism and a love of central planning.

As Hunter Hastings writes:

“We are taught in school that economics is about grand aggregations of statistics like Gross Domestic Product, and the employment level, and the inflation rate, and how government designs and implements policies to affect these aggregates. That’s just an excuse for government intervention, regulation, taxation, and the continued employment of economists as policy advisors.”

In reality, economics is not, or at least should not be, about central planning or policy that serves the “collective good,” because if we are honest with ourselves, there is no way to identify the wants and needs of groups of people. We can only identify the wants and needs of each individual actor, which is why all economic decision-making must begin with the individual human being — a  concept lost on many state actors.

Unfortunately, many economists make the mistake of looking at economics in terms of the collective, forgetting that the individual is the basis for which all things are possible. And that groups of people are, in reality, not a tangible unit of measurement.

Methodological Individualism

Economics is very much a social science that looks at how producers and consumers interact with one another to best meet each other’s needs. But these interactions happen on the individual level. And unless we start small, observing the individual’s role in this process, we cannot hope to understand the economy as a whole.

For producers to adequately determine the needs of the consumer, they must understand the wants and needs of the individual consumer first. After all, there can be no collective without the individual units of which it is comprised.

In economic terms, this is described as methodological individualism, which is the theory that explains that “social and economic phenomena can be explained by reference to the actions of individuals rather than groups or collectives.”

Elaborating on this, Libertarianism.org explains that this theory:

“…does not claim that only the individual human being is real or that social phenomena do not exist. It simply holds that the individual human being alone is able to think, feel, and act. We can impute actions, purposes, and values only to individuals; when we apply these terms to society, we enter the domain of metaphor.”

While this theory was originally developed by Joseph Schumpeter, it was his predecessor, Carl Menger, who founded the Austrian school of economics, who truly originated the idea. In 1889, he wrote, “There is no economic phenomenon that does not ultimately find its origin and measure in the economically acting human and his economic deliberations.”

Health Care Policy

There is, perhaps, no greater example of how detrimental it is to view economic policy in terms of the collective, rather than the individual, than health care. The entire premise for Obamacare and other versions of universal medicine are based on the presumption that the collective good is more important than the individual.

But, in reality, this “collective good” does not actually exist. And by assuming that the best health care policies must be crafted on the basis of what is good for groups of people instead of what each individual health care consumer wants and needs, you cannot logically hope to make any progress in this field.

It is for this reason that these policies have been such a failure. The government assumes that cost is the bottom line for health care consumers and have operated on this premise. Cost is one component in an individual’s hierarchy of needs, but there are many more elements, especially when there is urgent need for care. Focusing exclusively on cost completely negates the subjective wants of each individual person. No state apparatus can determine this for the collective. Only the producer, working in tandem with the consumer, can create options that truly fulfill their needs.

It is for this reason that we have seen the rise in services like direct pay care, where physicians take out the middleman, whether that be an insurance provider, government, or both, and instead work with actual patients to agree on the cost of care and what services are valued the most. Once producers work with individual consumers to better understand these wants, this concept can be expanded to include more individuals. But it is important to note that even large groups of people are really just several individual units. This idea that as a collective we think and act as one is not only wrong, but it greatly distorts the market process. There is no collective, there are only individuals, and when economists ignore this most important fact it is at their own peril.

As sociologist Georg Simmel said, “Groping for something tangible, we found only individuals and between them nothing but empty space.”

If You Perceive A Contradiction, Check Your Premises. Or Write For The New York Times

/in /by

Earlier this year, the New York Times ran an opinion piece written by David Adler. The title of the article is Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists. A title like that assumes that words like centrist and extremist have widely accepted meanings. They don’t; they exhibit the cheap, louche language of identity groupthink.

Increasing the verbal confusion, here the author uses the politically correct model of left vs. right, or, to be more precise, the version that was adopted by welfare state apologists in the 1950s:

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called Antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles.

In this introduction, Adler is equating democracy with liberal principles and fascism with the extreme right. He is suggesting that thugs clad in black are misunderstood, and he accepts the attacks on libertarians without reservation. But according to dictionary.com, libertarians are: 1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.

So isn’t the attack on libertarianism as fascist a contradiction? One that Adler accepts? And who are these centrists? What is it about democracy that they oppose, or liberal principles that they don’t understand? He makes no attempt to reconcile these contradictions.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

To provide academic support for the conclusion in the title of his article, the author cites data from the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey. He touts them as “two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries.” In the World Values Survey there are 290 questions divided into 14 categories. The categories with the highest number of questions (35+) are social values, social capital, political interest, and demographics. The two categories with the fewest questions (6) are economic values, and science and technology.

Obviously, the brain trust behind this survey doesn’t know or care that economic values and science drive all human progress. One question in the survey asks respondents to rank themselves on a spectrum of far left, to center, to far right based on some contrived definition of left and right. The Times article doesn’t question these false premises, but it does identify some contradictions in the data.

The expected outcome is that the extreme left and right would prefer authoritarian systems. However, Adler’s analysis of the survey data concludes that it is the centrists who prefer authoritarian leaders, presumably because they will deliver stability and growth. The data cited for this conclusion is that only 42% of European “centrists” thought “democracy is a very good system,” and only 33% of American “centrists” thought so. In both cases, the so-called left and right extremists preferred democracy more than centrists. 

This contradiction is central to the article, but the data is the data, right? To fail to challenge the definitions offered or the structure of the survey can only serve one motive – egalitarianism, meaning all political ideologies have merit. The article also finds that the self-identified centrists generally do not support free and fair elections or protection from state oppression, but apparently extremists do. The author’s conclusion is that extremists view liberal democratic institutions more favorably. What could be the motive for accepting this survey and its data at face value?

The Fallacies of Confusion vs. the Realities of the Economic Way

Adler’s so-called research masquerading as objective analysis of survey data is absurd, and the fallacies are easy to identify and correct. Here is a list of just some the false premises and corrective measures.

  • Fascism does not belong on the far right of the political spectrum. It is a form of collectivism. All forms of collectivism belong on the left (fascism, socialism, ethno-nationalism, etc.). Individualism belongs on the right, assuming a left-right model is even useful.
  • Centrists are not defined at all, except by what they are not. Most likely these respondents prefer a welfare state, and they don’t care how it is enacted. In the annals of human history, economic and political freedom are extreme outlier events. A centrist, by definition, will vote freedom away in favor of personal security.
  • Democracy is not a classically liberal principle. It leads to mob rule, such as campus radicals, Antifa, fascism and ethno-nationalism. The constitutional Republic is the classically liberal system of government with democratic elections for specific needs.

Accordingly, it makes sense that the extreme right and left in this survey would favor a mob rule style of democracy. Maybe that’s what the centrists were afraid of. It would be better to create a survey that compares economic and political freedom with central economic planning.

The survey, as extensive as it is, and regardless of its statistical reliability, is egalitarian, inherently collectivist, and destructive in its priorities. A survey focused on the essentials for human flourishing would be revealing. What a concept.

The Survey That Matters Most

The most reliable survey ever conducted is people making voluntary choices with their money. Their choices include the basic needs for living well, saving for the future, buying equipment, education, and gifting. Free markets tabulate the results and publish them in the form of prices. Only sociologists funded by central economic planners need studies like the World Values Survey. To them, these surveys are essential to justify their existence. Unfortunately for us, using false premises to evaluate biased data only increases misunderstandings among people.

As individualists, it is important that we reclaim the linguistic territory. In this case, a clear distinction between republicanism and the democratic principles that make it work. And a clear distinction between the collaboration of individualism, the prosperity it creates; versus the coercion of collectivism and the resentment it fosters. There are no contradictions, only the false premises the Times opinion piece left unchecked.

 

 

 

The Decision to Homeschool Led to One Mother’s Arrest

/in /by

Raising children is no walk in the park, but it’s even more difficult when the state dictates what you can and cannot do with your own family. Kiarre Harris, a devoted single mother, had been trying her hardest to provide her children with the best possible upbringing.

After growing concerned that her children were not receiving an adequate education from the Buffalo public school system in New York State, she made the decision to pull her kids out of their school.

“I felt that the district was failing my children,” Harris reported.

Harris’ feelings are not uncommon among parents of public school students. Government schooling has been failing children for years. However, since it is funded through tax dollars, rather than being a product of the market, it is incredibly difficult to keep public schools, and public teachers, accountable. This is precisely why many parents have begun considering other options that are better suited to their children’s educational needs.

Frustrated and desperate for an alternative, Harris spent time researching homeschooling, which she ultimately decided was the best direction for her family. Unfortunately, the state disagreed.

Most parents believe themselves to be the sole arbitrators when it comes to making choices that directly impact their children, and rightfully so, as kids are perhaps the most obvious fruits of one’s labor. But it has unfortunately become all too common for the state to intervene, asserting that government knows what is best for your child.

An Unexpected Visit

Harris had done everything exactly right. She familiarized herself with the legal process and followed all the guidelines required by the state of New York in order to homeschool her children.

“I spoke directly to the homeschool coordinator and she told me from this point on my children were officially un-enrolled from school.”

But despite filing all the relevant and mandated paperwork and working closely with the district to ensure she was adhering to the proper protocol, Harris received a phone call from Child Protective Services a week later, demanding to know why her children had not been attending school.

She explained the situation to the state representative and even offered to provide them with copies of the paperwork she had already filed with the district. The representative appeared to be appeased by Harris’ explanation, and she believed the matter had been fully resolved.

Before even a month had passed since the unexpected phone call, Harris and her family received a visit from social service representatives, who were accompanied by local police officers.

Claiming to have an order from a local judge, ordering the state to remove her children from their home, Harris did what any mother would do and refused to hand her children over to strangers with government badges.

Instead of discussing the matter and attempting to get to the bottom of the situation before uprooting young children from the comfort and safety of their home and mother, police officers arrested Harris for obstructing law enforcement in the line of duty.

What Happened Next?

The school district responded by saying that homeschooling is a right only granted to those who have full custody of their children, alluding to the possibility that Harris was not the sole custodian of her two kids.

Harris, who was no newbie to single parenthood, had had sole custody of her children for several years. However, the incompetence of the state appears to be enough of a reason to not only remove her children, but to deny her visitation privileges altogether.

Harris ultimately ended up going weeks without seeing her children. By no fault of her own, the state punished Harris for doing what she, as their mother, believes is best for the children.

The state, as always, has justified their actions under the guise of “protecting” the Harris children. However, it is unclear how ripping two minors from their home serves any benefit to Harris’ kids. This tragic situation perfectly demonstrates the inherent nature of government failure, not only in the education system but also with something as simple as proper communication.

Government education has failed. This is why it is so important that each individual has the right to choose how they want their children educated. The state has no right to intervene in these matters.

Fortunately, the children were later reunited with their mother, but the family should have never had to go through this ordeal, to begin with.

 

How to Adopt an Entrepreneurial Mindset in the Workplace

/in , /by

You don’t have to create a product or think up a revolutionary idea in order to be an entrepreneur. No matter what your profession might be there are always opportunities to practice entrepreneurship.

In a recent article for Entrepreneur magazine, editor-in-chief Jason Feifer commented on how entrepreneurship is less about what you do and more about how you think. He writes:

“I don’t see entrepreneurship as a career choice. It’s a mindset. That’s the thing I marvel at most when spending time with brilliant entrepreneurs, and it’s the skill I think everyone should continually hone.”

He continued:

“When you think like an entrepreneur, it’s like wearing augmented reality glasses. You see the same things as everyone else, but you see them differently. They appear as inactive opportunities, just waiting to be activated. All you need is to find a new way for something old to be useful.”

Understanding this, it becomes easy to see how there are entrepreneurial opportunities all around us. In a typical office setting, for example, there are plenty of ways to adopt the entrepreneurial mindset and look for ways to create value all around you.

Create Value by Creating Solutions

One of the defining characteristics of an entrepreneur is value creation. For product innovators, this is often done by creating marketable solutions to widespread problems. Or creating solutions to problems most people haven’t recognized yet.

When the Miracle Mop was invented, for example, it was the result of its creator looking for a way to improve on the mop and make the workload easier on housewives. By making the head of the mop removable, users not only avoided having to touch whatever was absorbed by the mop, but they could also throw it in the washer and reuse it. This solution was so appealing to consumers, that the mop became a huge market success. The inventor, Joy Mangano, identified a problem and then went one step further and provided a solution. And problem-solving is a skill that can be practiced in any field.

Inefficiencies exist everywhere, but it is not enough to simply point out their existence and leave it at that. Everybody is capable of complaining but few people are capable of implementing actual solutions. And as Feifer alludes, the entrepreneurial mind views these inefficiencies as “inactive opportunities.”

If you identify a cog in the system that is inhibiting workflow, instead of merely pointing it out to your superior, brainstorm solutions. Be prepared to come to the table thinking like an entrepreneur. No one would walk into a product pitch only to identify a problem and then walk out. The same should be said for the workplace. If you see a problem, provide solutions. And by doing so, you are creating value for your employer.

Learn to be Adaptable

The business world is highly unpredictable. You can be on top of the world one day and down in the dumps the next. But serial entrepreneurs know that it is important to learn to roll with the punches. Every single person can benefit from learning to go with the flow, but this adaptability can be especially useful in creating value in the workplace.

No matter what line of work you are in, each day there are literally dozens of things that could go wrong. And when something does happen, whether that be a missed deadline or a loss of a major client, you want to strive to be the person who remains calm and collected at all times. Training yourself to be adaptable no matter what happens sets yourself up for success should something stressful occur. In short, you always want to be the person that the office looks to in an emergency.

You can also be adaptable by learning how to perform as many tasks around the office as possible. The more roles you are able to fill, the higher your value is in the workplace. By learning to be a man or woman of “many hats,” you show that you are willing to do whatever is needed in order to succeed—a quality that won’t go unnoticed.

For most entrepreneurs, the beginning of their careers is marked by having to fill every company role themselves. They are often the accounting department, the manufacturer, and the CEO. In order to make it through the first few years of launching a business, you have to learn to adapt and do whatever is necessary for your product or idea to get off the ground and running.

Brand Yourself

Even the best products or ideas would tank if they weren’t marketed correctly, and the workplace is no different. Entrepreneurs know that branding is everything and without the ability to stand out from the competition you don’t stand a chance. It’s not enough to just be “another” option in the marketplace, you have to be “the best” option to beat out the competition.

The same is true of the workplace. In order to stand out among your coworkers and others in the job market, you need to make yourself uniquely indispensable. Do what you need to do to be known as the person who always comes through on a project or the person who never misses a deadline. Speak up at meetings and offer to discuss the “inactive opportunities” you have identified. If you can market yourself as someone who is always willing to look for ways to create value, your career will benefit as a result.

Write for CFI