Guest Post: How The Market Creates Jobs And How The Government Destroys Them

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Authored by Walter Block, originally posted at Austrian Economics and Liberty blog,

The Creation of Jobs

If the media tell us that “the opening of XYZ mill has created 1,000 new jobs,” we give a cheer. When the ABC company closes and 500 jobs are lost, we’re sad. The politician who can provide a subsidy to save ABC is almost assured of widespread public support for his work in preserving jobs.

But jobs in and of themselves do not guarantee well-being. Suppose that the employment is to dig huge holes and fill them up again? What if the workers manufacture goods and services that no one wants to purchase? In the Soviet Union, which boasts of giving every worker a job, many jobs are just this unproductive. Production is everything, and jobs are nothing but a means toward that end.

Imagine the Swiss Family Robinson marooned on a deserted South Sea island. Do they need jobs? No, they need food, clothing, shelter, and protection from wild animals. Every job created is a deduction from the limited, precious labor available. Work must be rationed, not created, so that the market can create the most product possible out of the limited supply of labor, capital goods, and natural resources.

The same is true for our society. The supply of labor is limited. We must not allow government to create jobs or we lose the goods and services which otherwise would have come into being. We must reserve precious labor for the important tasks still left undone.

Alternatively, imagine a world where radios, pizzas, jogging shoes, and everything else we might want continuously rained down like manna from heaven. Would we want jobs in such a utopia? No, we could devote ourselves to other tasks—studying, basking in the sun, etc.—that we would undertake for their intrinsic pleasure.

Instead of praising jobs for their own sake, we should ask why employment is so important. The answer is, because we exist amidst economic scarcity and must work to live and prosper. That’s why we should be of good cheer only when we learn that this employment will produce things people actually value, i.e., are willing to buy with their own hard-earned money. And this is something that can only be done in the free market, not by bureaucrats and politicians.

The Destruction of Jobs

But what about unemployment? What if people want to work, but can’t get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness.

Minimum Wage. The minimum wage mandates that wages be set at a government-determined level. To explain why this is harmful, we can use an analogy from biology: there are certain animals that are weak compared to others. For example, the porcupine is defenseless except for its quills, the deer vulnerable except for its speed.

 

In economics there are also people who are relatively weak. The disabled, the young, minorities, the untrained—all are weak economic actors. But like the weak animals in biology, they have a compensating advantage: the ability to work for lower wages. When the government takes this ability away from them by forcing up pay scales, it is as if the porcupine were shorn of its quills. The result is unemployment, which creates desperate loneliness, isolation, and dependency.

 

Consider a young, uneducated, unskilled person, whose productivity is $2.50 an hour in the marketplace. What if the legislature passes a law requiring that he be paid $5 per hour? The employer hiring him would lose $2.50 an hour.

 

Consider a man and a woman each with a productivity of $10 per hour, and suppose, because of discrimination or whatever, that the man is paid $ 10 per hour and the woman is paid $8 per hour. It is as if the woman had a little sign on her forehead saying, “Hire me and earn an extra $2 an hour.” This makes her a desirable employee even for a sexist boss. But when an equal-pay law stipulates that she must be paid the same as the man, the employer can indulge his discriminatory tendencies and not hire her at all, at no cost to himself.

 

Comparable Worth. What if government gets the bright idea that nurses and truck drivers ought to be paid the same wage because their occupations are of “intrinsically” equal value? It orders that nurses’ wages be raised to the same level, which creates unemployment for women.

 

Working Conditions. Laws which force employers to provide certain types of working conditions also create unemployment. For example, migrant fruit and vegetables pickers must have hot and cold running water and modern toilets in the temporary cabins provided for them. This is economically equivalent to wage laws because, from the point of view of the employer, working conditions are almost indistinguishable from money wages. And if the government forces him to pay more, he will have to hire fewer people.

 

Unions. When the government forces businesses to hire only union workers, it discriminates against non-union workers, causing them to be at a severe disadvantage or permanently unemployed. Unions exist primarily to keep out competition. They are a state-protected cartel like any other.

 

Employment Protection. Employment protection laws, which mandate that no one can be fired without due process, are supposed to protect employees. However, if the government tells the employer that he must keep the employee no matter what, he will tend not to hire him in the first place. This law, which appears to help workers, instead keeps them from employment. And so do employment taxes and payroll taxes, which increase costs to businesses and discourage them from hiring more workers.

 

Payroll Taxes. Payroll taxes like Social Security impose heavy monetary and administrative costs on businesses, drastically increasing the marginal cost of hiring new employees.

 

Unemployment Insurance. Government unemployment insurance and welfare cause unemployment by subsidizing idleness. When a certain behavior is subsidized—in this case not working—we get more of it.

 

Licensing. Regulations and licensing also cause unemployment. Most people know that doctors and lawyers must have licenses. But few know that ferret breeders, falconers, and strawberry growers must also have them. In fact, government regulates over 1,000 occupations in all 50 states. A woman in Florida who ran a soup kitchen for the poor out of her home was recently shut down as an unlicensed restaurant, and many poor people now go hungry as a result.

 

When the government passes a law saying certain jobs cannot be undertaken without a license, it erects a legal barrier to entry. Why should it be illegal for anyone to try their hand at haircutting? The market will supply all the information consumers need.

 

When the government bestows legal status on a profession and passes a law against competitors, it creates unemployment. For example, who lobbies for the laws which prevent just anyone from giving a haircut? The haircutting industry—not to protect the consumer from bad haircuts, but to protect themselves against competition.

 

Peddling. Laws against street peddlers prevent people from selling food and products to people who want them. In cities like New York and Washington, D.C., the most vociferous supporters of anti-peddling laws are established restaurants and department stores.

 

Child Labor. There are many jobs that require little training—such as mowing lawns—which are perfect for young people who want to earn some money. In addition to the earnings, working also teaches young people what a job is, how to handle money, and how to save and maybe even invest. But in most places, the government discriminates against teenagers and prevents them from participating in the free enterprise system. Kids can’t even have a street-corner lemonade stand.

 

The Federal Reserve. By bringing about the business cycle, Federal Reserve money creation causes unemployment. Inflation not only raises prices, it also misallocates labor. During the boom phase of the trade cycle, businesses hire new workers, many of whom are pulled from other lines of work by the higher wages. The Fed subsidy to these capital industries lasts only until the bust. Workers are then laid off and displaced.

The Free Market. The free market, of course, does not mean utopia. We live in a world of differing intelligence and skills, of changing market preferences, and of imperfect information, which can lead to temporary, market-generated unemployment, which Mises called “catallactic.” And some people choose unemployment by holding out for a higher paying job.

But as a society, we can insure that everyone who wants to work has a chance to do so by repealing minimum wage law, comparable worth rules, working condition laws, compulsory union membership, employment protection, employment taxes, payroll taxes, government unemployment insurance, welfare, regulations, licensing, anti-peddling laws, child-labor laws, and government money creation. The path to jobs that matter is the free market.

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:34 | 3435159 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

You didn't destroy that...

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:37 | 3435167 markmotive
markmotive's picture

The banks still attempt to corner the market when it is free.

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:38 | 3435171 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

The banks tell you what the market is... The only winning move is NOT TO PLAY...

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:22 | 3435257 flacon
flacon's picture

Can't EVER have a free market when MONEY is INTEREST-BEARING DEBT. First STOP THE USURY. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 06:24 | 3435546 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Absolutely true, as there can be no truly free market without a free market in money. Instead, the monetary fascism of the Federal Reserve lies at the core of a system so rotten it can only be fixed by eradicating it, by which I don't just mean central banking but the Central State.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 07:08 | 3435577 markmotive
markmotive's picture

I'm starting to wonder if there ever has been such a thing as a 'free market'. By its virtue, a free market will lead to the concentration of wealth and power as players compete, inevitibly turning itself into an oligarchy.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 07:14 | 3435580 markmotive
markmotive's picture

Quote from article:

But as a society, we can insure that everyone who wants to work has a chance to do so by repealing minimum wage law, comparable worth rules, working condition laws, compulsory union membership, employment protection, employment taxes, payroll taxes, government unemployment insurance, welfare, regulations, licensing, anti-peddling laws, child-labor laws, and government money creation. The path to jobs that matter is the free market.

In a free market, none of these rules would exist. But some of these rules are useful in that they theoretically protect society from the concentration of wealth and power. It's not that success should be punished. However, the success of some should not come at the expense of innovation.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 07:54 | 3435631 SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

it isn't about being productive.

it's about being busy.

and having a supervisor.

without those two items, where would you be?

honestly!

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 08:43 | 3435669 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Guest Post: How The Market Creates Jobs And How The Government Destroys Them

I guess this means we're about to see the usual deluge of logic-free ad homs in response, from the usual collection of spittle-flecked laborites who will forego attempting to address any of Walter Block's excellent reasoning in favor of wanking on about the evils of Ayn Rand and her poor taste in hats. Throw in some strawmen about Alan Greenspan - he was a libertarian, right? and you're well on your way to winning the debate! At least, you would be if you were back at HuffPo, which is the very touchstone of enlightened thinking, no?

'But if we took away employee rights, employers could demand blow jobs from their employees every morning!' I've got news for you - they can do that now... and if you say no, they can successfully fire you for any number of made-up reasons if they're careful enough, and been smart enough to only proposition you in private. Of course, because it's so hard to set up a new business as a direct result of the very regulations that you think are protecting you as an employee, it'll be harder for you to find a job with an employer who would treat you better. Remember reading all those autobiographies, where ordinary people were fired or left an employer one morning, and got another job with another employer later that same day? Why do you think that's virtually impossible now? The regulations - which were written by corporate puppets in the first place - have made barriers to entry for new businesses almost impossibly high.

'Without minimum wage laws, there will be a race to the bottom, and we'll all be working for a penny an hour!' I love this one. If you think employers have the ability to drive wages as low as they like, why stop at a penny an hour? Why not a penny a day? Week? Year? Lifetime? You appear to think there is no competition amongst employers for employees. Well, if it's so non-existent, why isn't everyone - ALL doctors, ALL lawyers, ALL artists, ALL tradesmen - earning 'minimum wage'?

'When you take away minimum wage, they pay their staff less, but does the cost cutting result in lowered prices of goods? No, it just lines the pockets of the greedy bosses!' I've got news for you - competition is a real, driving force in business: except when a corporation's income is protected by government mandate. Try opening a business yourself, and you'll quickly discover that if you don't pass any cost savings onto your customers quickly enough, your competitors certainly will, gaining market share at your expense.

etc. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 14:06 | 3437386 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

"By its virtue, a free market will lead to the concentration of wealth and power as players compete, inevitibly turning itself into an oligarchy."

Not so, mm, as a truly free market would have to state for an oligarchy to entrench itself, genuine competition assuring that monopoly power would be fleeting, at best, amid a relentless process of Schumpeterian "creative destruction."


 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:25 | 3435260 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

But as a society, we can insure that everyone who wants to work has a chance to do so by repealing minimum wage law, comparable worth rules, working condition laws, compulsory union membership, employment protection, employment taxes, payroll taxes, government unemployment insurance, welfare, regulations, licensing, anti-peddling laws, child-labor laws, and government money creation. 

Ah yes, another guest post featuring the primitive mind at work.

 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:47 | 3435298 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Indeed, "the State" and "the Austrian" have developed a true symbiotic relationship...

in which both depend upon the other to validate and give life to their existence...without it's corporatist cartel financed critics, the State would probably 'wither away' by itself for lack of attention...

without "the State" and it's socialist henchmen, the Austrians would surely 'wither away' for lack of a raison d'etre...plus ça change, plus c'est la même!

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 01:07 | 3435327 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Indeed, "the State" and "the Austrian" have developed a true symbiotic relationship...

This is not new, supposed 'free market' guy Milton Friedman who is often associated with the Austrian school was closely tied to the state and fully supported the federal reserve manipulating money supply to achieve predetermined goals. Followed by another 'free market' proponent (and Ayn Rand disciple) Alan Greenspan. Both of them had a huge impact on fiscal policy of the last 50 yrs.

socialist henchmen

They're not socialists, there hasn't been anyone even vaguely associated with true socialism in public political American life since Eugene Debs.

Read up on what socialism actually means hint: it's not the Nazis, Stalin or Engels.  See: Tommy Douglas

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 01:40 | 3435365 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Socialism...read up on who actually pushed for it in the beginning:

hint: it's not populist social reformers of the Prairie kind...

See Fabian Society...and the twisted minds of a group of idle tools of the the emergent rentier class of monopolistic Ashkenazi moneychangers who relieved the English and Continental nobility of the worry of excerising power or privilege; satanist scum antecedents of the same one's who have enthroned the Kenyan as the puppet price of the pharisees...

that's "Socialism" in Action Chumly...not gentle theory from gentle men of the forgotten West...

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 01:56 | 3435383 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Concentrating on the Fabians doesn't make any sense. Anyway I was referring to socialism for it's primary unifying idea of worker owned means of production. 

But as far as socialist governments, the first functioning socialist government in North America was headed by Tommy Douglas. And he wasn't from the West (unless you consider Scotland the west).

Some of their achievements:

When Mr. Douglas took office in 1944, Saskatchewan had a debt of $218-million - 38 per cent of provincial GDP. By 1949, he had reduced the debt to $70-million. By 1953, he had eliminated it. By 1961, when he left office, he had produced 17 successive budget surpluses. By reducing the debt, and thereby reducing interest costs, he was able to spend more on public services - without raising taxes.

Mr. Douglas did introduce the country's first universal-coverage hospital insurance program in 1947 - the same year in which Social Credit premier Ernest Manning introduced full-coverage medicare (covering hospital and doctor costs) for all senior citizens in Alberta. Even in Saskatchewan, Mr. Douglas didn't start from scratch: Thirty years earlier, the province had established municipally operated hospitals authorized to provide free service without regard to people's ability to pay.

"I think that there is value in having every family, and every individual, make some individual contribution," he said. "I think it has a psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives people a sense of personal responsibility. Even if we could finance [medicare]without a per capita tax, I personally would advise against it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/tommy-douglas-the-pragmatic-so...

Tommy Douglas eventually had a fall from grace, why? Opposing the war measures act.

"The Act, enacted previously only for wartime purposes, imposed extreme limitations on civil liberties, and gave the police and military vastly expanded powers for arresting and detaining suspects, usually with little to no evidence required."

Yes, he's a hero of mine. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 03:45 | 3435449 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Sir:

I most sincerely understand and appreciate your regard for a Prairie Son, and a man who treated both the polity at large and his own constituents with the respect required of a 'public servant'...as elected officials were formerly understood to be.

But these are not his times, nor are we equals to those who worked and lived within those times, for far we have fallen, and fallen indeed directly because of the Fabians and their ilk to whom I referred. The socialism which warms the hackles of your heart is a mirage...a tender virginal image behind lurks the sneering, scornful visage of the talmudist satanist collectivizing communist...

who depends always upon the gentle nature and innate goodness of the gentile who they dupe(I'm being extremely kind in this characterization in deference to your evident sincerity of purpose)into becoming agents of their own and their societies' destruction. It may not 'make sense' but it does make for a lot of misery on this planet which could be a paradise for us all.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 12:55 | 3437059 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

But these are not his times, nor are we equals to those who worked and lived within those times, for far we have fallen, and fallen indeed directly because of the Fabians and their ilk to whom I referred. The socialism which warms the hackles of your heart is a mirage...a tender virginal image behind lurks the sneering, scornful visage of the talmudist satanist collectivizing communist...

I was just pointing out an example of what was an active socialist government (very rare, the Fabians didn't run governments) that worked out very well and whose initiatives still positively affect Canadians. 

I don't actually believe in state-run socialism as I don't believe in states. You're not going to get many Tommy Douglas quality people, especially in politics. But I think workers can organize following his model - something that exists all across the world today in business co-ops. 

Production itself has moved to a socialist model all on it's own accord, but that's another argument..

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 13:17 | 3437165 Opinionated Ass
Opinionated Ass's picture

whose initiatives still positively affect Canadians

...especially if you're into pain and suffering:

"Canadians are being forced to wait almost 4 ½ months, on average, to receive surgical care, prolonging the pain and suffering patients and their families are forced to endure," said Mark Rovere."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/12/12/wait-times-surgery-fraser...

 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 13:35 | 3437231 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

Coming from a Fraser Institute study - anything they say should be immediately tossed in the garbage. 

Not to mention the Canadian system has been slowly privatized which has seen medical care co-incidentally go down in quality & costs go up. There's a lot of thought in Canada that there's a determined effort to make medical care nonfunctionable in order to convince people it needs to be privatized, but that's just crazy conspiracy talk!

 

There's currently a major effort replace universal healthcare in Canada with a model much like the American system so you see a lot of similar 'studies.' 

Virtually every poll conducted in Canada has shown Canadians very much still like their healthcare. Personally, I also pay for private insurance coverage in Canada as changes to the system have made it somewhat necessary. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 14:00 | 3437353 Opinionated Ass
Opinionated Ass's picture

You should be an Obama spin doctor,

"There's been a lot of thought that there's a determined effort to make Solyndra Solar look like a failure in order to convince people that the government should stay out of the business world."

Pretty slick.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 14:14 | 3437437 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"There's been a lot of thought that there's a determined effort to make Solyndra Solar look like a failure in order to convince people that the government should stay out of the business world."

Pretty slick.

Solyndra was a $ gift to campaign donors - totally different issue.

Healthcare in Canada on the other hand has many decades of data showing a system with good results and comparable costs to similar countries and of course better results and substantially cheaper than the US. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-...

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system as the highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health among 191 member nations included in a study

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 08:51 | 3435785 BigJim
BigJim's picture

James_Cole strikes again!

 This is not new, supposed 'free market' guy Milton Friedman who is often associated with the Austrian school...

If he's only a 'supposed' free market guy -ie, meaning that he's not really in favor of free markets - why would he be 'often' associated with the Austrian School (many of whom are out-and-out anarcho-capitalists) who are about as 'free market' as you can get?

As it happens, no one wholly associates Milton Friedman with the Austrians, at least no one worth listening to, exactly because he was a monetarist. He believed in wholesale government intervention in the money supply.

Friedman is most closely associated with the Chicago School. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 13:05 | 3437102 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

As it happens, no one wholly associates Milton Friedman with the Austrians, at least no one worth listening to, exactlybecause he was a monetarist. He believed in wholesale government intervention in the money supply.

Friedman is most closely associated with the Chicago School. 

That's why I said 'supposed' and 'often associated with' because the people who've done the most damage to the US economy in the last 50 yrs all claim to be huge 'free market' people. 

I'm not anti-free markets, I just see it as practically impossible to move from the past few thousand years of human history to a anarcho free market model.

Everyone who reads what I say next will have a brain meltdown, but I figure the only path to a semi 'free market' is a socialist production model. If people don't individually have access to production then a free market is impossible. Fortunately, technological evolution is making socialism in this sense practically an inevitability, but not state socialism - to make the distinction. 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 15:20 | 3437719 BigJim
BigJim's picture

James_Cole strikes again! 

 ...but I figure the only path to a semi 'free market' is a socialist production model. If people don't individually have access to production... 

Do you not know what socialism is? It's the State owning the means of production. How is the state owning the means of production - ie, it has the MONOPOLY on production - going to give people individual 'access to production'?

What a load of gibberish. We're not having a 'brain meltdown' out here, James; you are.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 16:09 | 3437930 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Do you not know what socialism is? It's the State owning the means of production.

Wrong.

Google is your friend:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownershipstate ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 17:13 | 3438206 BigJim
BigJim's picture

There's absolutely nothing preventing people starting up cooperative companies now to compete in the marketplace.

So kindly explain to us exactly what you mean. Or is requesting you to clarify your wishy-washy utterances just another example of old-fashioned 'binary' thinking?

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:51 | 3435301 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Libertarian pundits are actually just TPTB shills putting these ideas out, worded as such, to turn off the docile R and D voters from alternatives.

They'll say "I'm for open borders", with no caveat that if you come, you would work and you get no bennies, and no vote for 5-10 years.

They'll say "Legalize all drugs" but not include that all citizens could get to have an unlimited carry, open or concealed, to defend themselves and society would leave you in the gutter for the charity ward if you fucked yourself up on shit and couldn't pay for it.

They'll say "deregulate totally", but won't condition that on a strict PERSONAL liability standard with a robust court system to efficiently, vigorously and blindly serve justice to those injured or who've suffered fraud. (And by personal, they would be no more corporate or government shield to hide behind for an individuals wrongdoing).

Without outlining in detail how the Libertarian or little government model would operate, most rational people look at the memes they put out and think they're nuts and a threat to their statist cocoon.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 03:39 | 3435435 new game
new game's picture

deregulation lead to the current state of affairs-it is called facism. when the ptb make the rules using enforcable laws to fleece commoners.

drop the labels and ideology and talk straight-you sound like a fucking politician. call them what they are-power hungry ass wipes.

control freaks- narcissistic fucks; zuckerfuck is a perfect example or soros-but pleeze talk straight or take your college dorm room chat elsewhere. ideology is for loosers-accomplishes nothing and distracts...

until common peoples rise up, this gains momentum till you get about 25 percent of your labor, as yours.

keep an eye on france as they are at the limit of self imposed control that is about to backlash.  some peoples are weaker than others - iceland vs greece.  french will fight when cornered.  puss ass mutes called americans appear to be easily molified with trinkets while ass raped repeatedly and will (pavlovs dog style) get on all fours repeatedly...

whole lotta people suffer what appears to be avoidable by the intelligent types that give a shit and didn't watch idol or cnbs or the local news...

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 06:26 | 3435547 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

It is not de-regulation that has led to the current state of arrairs, but rather selective (over) regulation.  

Over the past decades the body of Statutory and Administrative law in the US has grown from thousands of pages to hudreds of thousands of pages, that is NOT de-regulation.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 08:56 | 3435805 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 deregulation lead to the current state of affairs-it is called facism...

LOL, yes, those anarcho-capitalists Mussolini and Hitler! How I remember - with considerable nostalgia, I might add - when they abolished fiat currency! Pared their militaries down to the bone! Freed up employment regulations, meaning that universities could employ Jews again, after all those years of oppressive Weimar Anti-Semitism! etc.

Are you genuinely this stupid? 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 09:59 | 3436033 akarc
akarc's picture

Libertarian, Republican, Democrat,...................

By whatever label you choose to slap on any ideology the label is meaningless once those chosen to  uphold it's values are not held accountable.

We are all at fault in this little game.

Our money is now controlled by what our own "Justice system" admits it can not control. We are a nation of laws. How did it get that way among a nation made up of democrats AND republicans?

"WE THE PEOPLE" became as corrupted and failed to fulfill our oblilgation to be forever vigilant. All biased ideological disussions here are nothing more than mental masterbation until we the people get of our asses and hold aourselves and those we have "elected" ACCOUNTABLE.

Call it what ever you want. Democracy, socialist, totalitarian, statist, whatever becasue in reality it is simply FUCKED UP!    

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 10:01 | 3436034 akarc
akarc's picture

whoops

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 15:34 | 3437783 Opinionated Ass
Opinionated Ass's picture

most rational people look at the memes they (libertarians) put out and think they're nuts and a threat to their statist cocoon

Gotta love that statist cocoon. 46 million on food stamps up from 26 million in 2007. And libertarians wanna change things? Yeah, they're nuts alright. /sarc

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 03:46 | 3435448 new game
new game's picture

the mind reverts to survival when allowed to. turn the shit off...

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 10:07 | 3435912 akarc
akarc's picture

"Imagine the Swiss Family Robinson marooned on a deserted South Sea island. Do they need jobs? No, they need food, clothing, shelter, and protection from wild animals. Every job created is a deduction from the limited, precious labor available."

So right off the bat he kills his whole post with faulty reasoning.

Procuring clothing, shelter, and protection are jobs! 

And is he suggesting we currently have a limited labor pool?

Working condition laws, Unions, Payroll taxes, Child labor laws.

Anyone ever ask why these things came about in the first place?

Totally free markets is a myth. Total freedom is myth. Man fucks these things up everytime.

Spend sometime in a grove picking oranges with migrant workers. Where they take Social security out of your cash wages yet never ask for you ss number. Where if you don't give 13 boxes to a ten box bin you are moved to a less productive grove. 

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Deal with the corruption of the current corporate/government alliance then talk to me about free markets.

Nothing but nothing works when corrupted.

I can only assume Tyler posts such crap as this cause he knows it will get a heap of page hits and numerous comments and arguments going. Which of course is good for any website.   

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 11:56 | 3436726 Opinionated Ass
Opinionated Ass's picture

Force employers to pay the least productive workers MORE than the most productive! Awesome plan man.

Hey, how come there are so few employers around...?

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 08:32 | 3435715 orez65
orez65's picture

The banks can only corner the market with counterfeited money created through "fractional reserves'"

It's like an inverted pyramid of counterfeit starting with the Federal Reserve creating money out of nothing.

Please stop your communist shit.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 08:50 | 3435776 marketexpress
marketexpress's picture

Its a zero sum game. everybody is so opportunist in approach.

http://www.marketexpress.in/2013/04/a-peek-into-the-high-stakes-of-world...

 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 10:47 | 3436263 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

You have to fight to keep the fairness in the market. That is the real lesson. It is a nonstop battle, you can't slack off for 20 seconds or you get like what happened to Mt Gox the other day. Freedom is a constant battle, it requires morals, responsiblity and dillgence, now you know why people are so quick to give it up in this society. It is not the system that sucks but the people and the way they've been conditioned from the cradle to adulthood by the state through the traditional control mechanisms. The government is not some vacumn, the people in it come from the same towns you live in, schools you go to, watch the same tv you do, read the same news. If we ain't the problem then they went bad somewhere along the way.

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:41 | 3435186 zorba THE GREEK
zorba THE GREEK's picture

The government is destroying every market through manipulation.

The cost of that will be the destruction of free markets and the loss

of confidence in the dollar. This will lead to the downfall of the U.S.

world supremacy.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:41 | 3435286 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

Big jobs make my head hurt.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 03:28 | 3435439 new game
new game's picture

yes sir, the flood of dollars will be the undoing

bond bubble bursts and stawks plummet. price rise very fast and quickly spirals out of control

and bens mop aint big enuf

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 16:41 | 3438075 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

I lol'd

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:43 | 3435183 RideTheWalrus
RideTheWalrus's picture

If everyone has a job and can support themselves, then who would vote for the politicians to do their job? 
Have you ever tried living on the street and keeping your tailored silk suit freshly pressed? It's basically impossible.

They need atleast 40% unemployed or sucking at their teets or they will be out of the job.

 

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:43 | 3435187 Stockmonger
Stockmonger's picture

I want to be exposed to dangerous workplaces, have no minimum wage, be fired for not agreeing to be sodomized by my boss, and no organized labor.  I want aggressive squeegie men cleaning my windshield at every intersection.  I want to put children back to work in factories. 

Lower wages are good for everyone.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:23 | 3435259 snblitz
snblitz's picture

Higher wages are good for some, and very bad for those with no wages.

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:36 | 3435281 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

When children actually did work in factories in the industrial revolution the child mortality rate dropped dramatically because they could actually contribute to the family income and were "worth" something...

 

 

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 00:41 | 3435290 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

When children actually did work in factories in the industrial revolution the child mortality rate dropped dramatically because they could actually contribute to the family income and were "worth" something...

What about up until the great depression when child labour was still common in the US? Or how about todays child labourers on US farms, child mortality rate 'dropping dramatically' for hundreds of years I guess lol

A few hundred more years of child labour and the death rate will be totally excellent!

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 01:21 | 3435340 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

In both cases, if there wasn't an opportunity to work, their death rates would rise, or would have risen, dramatically. 

Work that emotional side though...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!