El Diputado Distributista

Posting hiatus

2009-02-18T19:37:00.002-05:00

I will be leaving on Friday for Europe and will almost certainly not be posting during my stay there. I will return late April. Wish me Bon Voyage! =)

Cervantes Saavedra volvió!!!

2009-02-11T21:44:00.002-05:00

One of the greatest pieces of literature I have ever found in the blogosphere. My professor's satiric piece on U.S. China relations can be found here: http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com/2009/02/geithners-upcoming-dialogue-with-chinas.html

Here is the text:

Imagining Geithner's Constructive Dialogue with China

In his testimony to the Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote:

More generally, the best approach to ensure that countries do not engage in manipulating their currencies is to demonstrate that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh the benefits. If confirmed, I look forward to a constructive dialogue with our trading partners around the world in which Treasury makes the fact-based case that market exchange rates are a central ingredient to healthy and sustained growth.

I can already hear the constructive dialogue he will have when he arrives in China...

Geithner: Thank you President Hu and Premier Wen for inviting me to dialogue with you about matters of the utmost importance to the future of your economy.

Hu: Welcome esteemed Treasury Secretary. We are looking forward to your kind consideration in our affairs.

Geithner: I understand that you now have $1.7 trillion dollars in your currency reserves. That's more than enough to protect the yuan should it fall in the currency markets. For your own benefit, you should stop buying so many dollars and use your country's savings to help your own people, instead of us.

Wen: Thank you for your kind consideration. But we are always concerned with the welfare of the American people and want to provide them with the financing that they need to buy our products.

Geithner: You realize of course, that the dollar will eventually fall in value by 50% while your yuan will rise in value by 40%. You will lose money if you keep changing your yuan for dollars in order to keep the dollar high and the yuan low.

Hu: You are most considerate. Your president has chosen a treasury secretary of rare intelligence. But we do want to help your people so much, we are willing to sacrifice our own interests. We will indeed continue to finance your stimulus package so that your people can buy more Chinese imports.

Geithner: I am concerned about the future markets for Chinese products. If you don't buy our products, our consumers won't get the sustained growth in income that they would need in order to buy ever increasing amounts of imports from you.

Wen: Your thoughtfulness knows no bounds. You are truly the wisest and most thoughtful treasury secretary that we have yet encountered. But do not trouble yourself. Your people will not need more income. We will provide all of the financing that they will need to buy our products.

Geithner: Thank you for taking my advice into your consideration. Our economists are convinced that market exchange rates are a central ingredient to healthy and sustained growth.

Hu: Most esteemed treasury secretary, how can we ever thank you enough for such sage advice. We will certainly take your advice into consideration as we make our five year plans. And be assured, we will continue to supply the financing that you need so that your stimulus plan can stimulate American imports.

[Exit Geithner]

Wen: Do you have your copies of the Journal of International Money and Finance handy. I'd like to read Heng-Fu Zou's 1997 paper again. It gives me such a laugh to know that a Peking University professor explained our strategy to the Americans and they still haven't figured it out.

Hu: That's nothing. The Japanese used the same strategy for five decades, and the Americans never understood what was happening, even while the Japanese targeted one American industry after another.

Wen: Speaking of that, have you seen the latest reports. We gained market share in our competition with every single remaining American industry during the last quarter! Four more American corporations are filing for bankruptcy. We will be in a very strong position when this recession ends.

Hu: I find this earnest young man to be very amusing. I love the way that he is always looking out for our welfare and never the welfare of his own country. Do be sure to invite him back, and do tell him that we look forward to our next constructive dialogue.

Perdón Sr. Presidente, pero me toca a mí

2009-02-04T21:52:00.001-05:00

1. Free trade with coutries who want to free trade (Latin America!). Selective import certificates for countries praticing mercantilism (China & Japan). Perhaps we could have the entire NAFTA system use import certificates on China.

2. refurbish the tax system. Now I must admit I lean Fairtax/value added tax, but I think we should also include something along the lines of a Georgian land tax and perhaps a capital gains rollover tax, but the fairtax sort of doubles for both of those I *think*.

3. Set a constant money supply growth Federal reserve policy

4. stop corporate welfare and discretionary fiscal policies.

5. ideally move to low levels of taxation/gov spending, but not so much that we don't have a government

6. make all highways tolled so as to stop subsidizing big box retail.

E-War

2009-01-30T15:12:00.002-05:00

There's a war going on at Disciples of Diotima! Join the carnage!

Men: Yeah!
Women: I knew liking warrior princesses would come in handy someday.

Esta un conflicto en Disciples of Diotima. Vengan! Hablan! Ganan por muerte!

Hombres: Mas Bueno Che!
Mujeres: Pensia que me gusta reinas con weapones vaya necessario.

Wage Discrimination?

2009-01-29T09:40:00.003-05:00

In the context of an article about wage discrepancy laws, the Lincoln Journal Star recently contained a remark that said something like this: "According to the US Census Bureau, women earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by men doing equivalent jobs." The way the paper presented it, this looks like evidence of wage discrimination, but is it? Here's some reasons it might not be.

1. What is an "equivalent job?" Is being the chef at Grisanti's equivalent to being the waiter/waitress? It does not seem implausible that men would usually be in the higher up and better paying of two positions when two jobs that are really different are considered equivalent. Is a part time job equivalent to a full time job?

2. Does "equivalent job" mean "equivalent work?" It makes sense to pay women less if they do less work then the men on the same job for reasons of physical capacity. For example, if there are women construction workers, it would be plausible for them to statistically have a lower work output, and thus be paid less.

3. Do women, on average, earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by men on average? Or does American Womankind earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by the declined American male? If there are more working men and the study used the second option, wage discrimination would probably not exist.

4. It is possible (though unlikely) that men create a better "impression," either in their initial interview or in the workplace. I don't think that having a part of the wage be based on impression counts as discrimination.

5. Some employers (such as my grandfather) view women employees as relatively unreliable because they have to occasionally take off time at work to have children or take care of home/child matters. Just as risky mortgage applicants have to pay higher rates, risky employees would have to be paid lower wages.

6. Does the study take into account family-run businesses where a husband and wife work but only the husband counts as the one receiving the money?

7. Last, but not least, the Papal Encyclicals (and probably Chesterton's principles of subsidiarity as well) state that it is ideal if the family lives on one income, the father's and not the mothers, and if possible, companies should pay fathers enough so that mothers do not have to work. An employer with this view (which would not only be Catholic employers) would likely pay his women less. This is not discrimination.

My Research Paper

2009-01-29T09:33:00.002-05:00

Here's a research paper I did on the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, if you want to learn more about the general Israel situation. I think that when you read it and then consider that the leaders of the middle east nations could be letting the people in the refugee camps that generate the Islamic radicalists that cause the problems assimilate into middle east nations nations but these leaders do not do so, you will begin to see why I commented the way I did on Don Pedro's post on Israel a few days ago.
Introduction
Ever since sin entered the world, there have been conflicts between nations. One that has been highly publicized is the semi-perpetual state of tension between the nation of Israel and its Arabic neighbors. One country in particular that has had a rough relationship with Israel is Lebanon, the small nation directly to the north. At its root, this conflict is religious, and the situation would be alleviated by the increased spread of Christianity in Israel and Lebanon.
History of Lebanese Elements in the Israel-Lebanon Conflict
The Israel-Lebanon conflict actually started because of internal tension in Lebanon. Years ago, when Lebanon was formed from territory that was previously French, there was a slight majority of Christians (mostly Maronites) in the population. The constitution insured that there would be six Christian representatives for every five Moslem representatives, that the President would always be a Christian and that the Prime Minister would always be a Moslem. Although this system worked well for a time, the decrease in the Christian/Moslem ratio and the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the Christians resulted in an increase of tension. The two religions began to build up private militias to enforce their respective collective wills, eventually leading to all-out anarchy and civil war, with factions of Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, Maronites and others. At some point in their effort to “subjugate” the Christians, the Moslem factions allied with (by inviting to Lebanon) the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), an organization of exiled past inhabitants of the area that is now Israel. These people, in addition to being allies of the Moslem factions in Lebanon, were also determined to destroy the nation of Israel so that they could repossess their entire native land of Palestine. In addition to their anti-Christian activities, the PLO also carried out anti-Israeli activities. Although an invasion of Lebanon by Israel forced the PLO to leave Lebanon for a time, Israel and the United States were either unable or unwilling to stop the civil war. Eventually, the PLO returned to Lebanon and peace was established through a new constitution that included provisions for 50-50 (Moslem, Christian) distribution of seats in the Lebanese legislature (seen as an injustice by many Christians, although they comprised only 30% of the population). Today, Hamas (A Lebanese Islamic terrorist organization founded by Israel as a counterbalance to the PLO), and Hezbollah (a Lebanese Islamic terrorist organization founded by Shiite clerics and funded by Syria and Iran), carry out most of the anti-Israeli terrorism from Lebanon. Thus, the conflict between Israel and Lebanon has generally not been one of invasion and counter-invasion, but of terrorism inflicted by Lebanese Islamic groups on Israel’s population, infrastructure, and military establishments, followed by Israeli retaliation.
Why the Lebanese Internal Conflict is a Religious Conflict
Although economic elements may have played a role in the increase of tension in Lebanon and the strained relationship between Lebanon and Israel, the element that changed Lebanon from peaceful to chaotic was the religious element. While there are examples of people of different religions living peacefully together (such as the United States) and of people of one economic class ruling those of a lower economic class (such as the feudal system in the Middle Ages), the fact that both of these separations were in place in Lebanon simultaneously made the situation much more difficult. Because the Christians had all the influence in the government, due to the required 6/5 Christian-Muslim ratio in the Lebanese parliament, all the people of one religion and wealth class were put in power, despite the fact that the country, with its Moslem majority, masqueraded as a democracy. Religion aggravated a potential source of conflict: money. Religion also provided a means for the minority to take power from the majority, an action that would be perceived as an injustice in a democratic nation.
Why Christianity Would Alleviate the Situation
A Christian evangelization of Lebanon would have many beneficial affects on the situation in the area. Obviously, the spread of Christianity in Lebanon would mean the decrease of the Moslem portion of the population. Such a situation could decrease (and if carried out completely, eliminate) the civil strife in Lebanon because the Christians would no longer be all wealthy and disproportionately powerful, thus pacifying the religious-defined class conflict behind the main desire of the Moslem population to continue to support the PLO. A Christian Lebanese population would probably also cease to support the Hezbollah organization; founded as it is by Shiite clerics, it certainly has an Islamic, not a Christian agenda. With an official name like “Islamic Resistance Movement,” Hamas also would be likely to collapse if Lebanon became a Christian country. All three organizations would most likely weaken insofar as Christianity strengthened. Each of the three organizations that cause conflict between Israel and Lebanon would be likely to weaken or collapse and thus cause no conflict with Israel if Christianity were to be spread in Lebanon.
To understand fully how the conflict is a religious conflict, however, it is also necessary to understand why the groups in Lebanon have a conflict with Israel in the first place, and thus, to understand Israel’s history.
History of Israel side of Israel-Lebanon Conflict
Israel was founded in 1948 by British mandate as a home for Jews. Many of these Jews were Zionists, who were attached to the idea of a distinctly Jewish state for both the purpose of Jewish advancement and the avoidance of another Holocaust. Many other founders had other very Jewish agendas, such as the reunification of the Jewish Diaspora, the spiritual and cultural advancement of the Jewish people, and the hastening of the coming of the “Messiah.” They further thought that these agendas would be achieved through the founding of a Jewish state. After the state was founded, the Jews lived in a situation of tension with their neighbors and with the Palestinians who lived in or used to live in the area of Israel and who refused to assimilate into Israel’s population. In 1967, the Israelis launched a preemptive war against the Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians, taking the Sinai peninsula, Old Jerusalem, and the West Bank (which holds the holy places of Judaism). However, these Jews were faced with a problem: they could not possess the entire Biblical land of Israel with out either losing their Jewish character to the Palestinians who would be voting along with the Jews or losing their democracy by tyrannically excluding the Palestinians from the voting process. Naturally, the native, conquered Palestinians in this area were displeased with their lot, launching the Intifada rebellion in 1987. The displaced Palestinians settled in many places, such as Lebanon. In Lebanon, they were (and 200,000 of them still are) kept landless in refugee camps, longing for their homeland because they have not assimilated into the Lebanese population. These refugees allow Hezbollah to work in Lebanon because they “destabilize” it. These same refugees also make up much of the PLO organization that contributes to both the Lebanon-Israel conflict and the Lebanese civil conflict. These conflicts have not ceased, despite the fact that Israel ceded all of Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005 and despite the fact that 70-80% of the West Bank is currently under Palestinian control.
Why the Israeli-Lebanese-Palestinian Conflict is a Religious Conflict
The Palestinians outside Israel have a quarrel with Israel’s very existence. Because Israel’s existence is a religious existence, this quarrel is a religious conflict. Additionally, there are other religious elements in the quarrel that Lebanese refugee Palestinians have with Israel. Lebanese Moslems use these Palestinians in their religious conflict with the Lebanese Christians in the manner outlined above. At the same time, both Israeli Jewish and Lebanese Moslem politicians use Hamas to create among the people religious and/or ethnic/patriotic rage against their enemies, and thus keep themselves in office. The Lebanon-Israel conflict has both religious roots and religious elements that exacerbate it even today.
Why Christianity Would Alleviate the Situation
A Christian evangelization of Israel would have many beneficial effects on the tense situation in the area. Because Israel would lose its identity as a Jewish state, the people would have nothing but ethnic and economic objections to the immigration and assimilation of 200,000+ Palestinians, thus giving homes to many of the refugees who make up a large portion of the PLO and destabilize Lebanon. Perhaps there would even be a reverse-assimilation, where the Israelis abandon the notion of Israel altogether and assimilate into some sort of Palestinian nation. Although some Christian denominations may pressure Israel to keep its Jewish identity, after Israelis realize certain Christian teachings, they ought to realize that the Jewish identity will not necessarily make them better Christians, but this identity will necessarily impede the spread of peace in the area. Israelis would be able to admit many more solutions to the Lebanon-Israeli conflict if they became Christian.
Conclusion
The Lebanon-Israel conflict is primarily a conflict of religious classes. While the Christians and Moslems fight for power in Lebanon because of its undemocratic religion-based democracy, the Jews and non-Jewish Palestinians (including those in Lebanon) fight for land by war and by terrorism in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel because Israel’s status as a Jewish state does not permit many refugee Palestinians to live in their ancestral homes. The spread of Christianity in Israel and Lebanon would weaken the lines and distinctions that separate and provoke the warring factions, thus crippling both their ability and their desire to fight each other. Although the Israel-Lebanon conflict may not be between the religion of Israel and the religion of Lebanon directly, it is a religious conflict nevertheless, and it requires a primarily religious solution.

el monetarismo

2009-01-28T18:37:00.003-05:00

My fellow distributists do not talk a lot about monetary policy and do not understand why I simultaneously subscribe to both the monetarist and the distributist schools of economic thought. Here's the short of it: they both contain uncommon common sense. While I do not agree with Milton Friedman's radical political views, I believe his approach to monetary policy is the best one yet.

Monetarism is the simply idea that money should be money. Keynesians and supply siders focus on their pets projects which have the goal and making money somehow a magical cure all to the business cylce. I suspect that they countercyclical policy actually retards overall economic growth, but I have no proof of that. Now, money has 4 purposes:

1. a medium of exchange

2. a unit of value

3. a standard of deferred payment
and
4. a store of value

Now monetarists aim for a constant money growth target of about 3% greater than growth of GDP. This ensures that there will be no deflation, but very low inflation. Now, supply siders and Keynesians are always inflating or deflating the dollar insanely fast, erroding away its 3 of its 4 basic functions. While the function of medium of exchange is not usually affected, in cases of very bad activist decisions (à la Zimbabew), it can. As a unit of value, the contantly changing currency loses its efficieny and messese with everyone's interanal price regulators. Supply sider Bush inflated the dollar 20% during his administration, and I expect a similar amount from Keynesian Obama. As a standard of deferred payment, money fares even worse under our Keynesian/supply sider tyranny. Frankly, you never quite know how much the money you are going to receive will be worth, which distracts from productive efforts and engages a large part of the economy in speculating about policy/inflationary expectations, etc. And finally, as a store of value, considering that currencies are almost always inflating, just at varying rates, frequently currencies are not very good stores of value. While I have no problem with the monetarist constant low rate of inflation (which I imagine would encourage people to invest in capital and not just throw everything in a savings account or the like), the inflation we have with the Keynesians/supply siders creates dificulties with economic efficiency. Because monetarism proposes to keep money as money, I believe that it is the most logical of any current school of monetary policy.

Las Malvinas....

2009-01-27T20:10:00.002-05:00

son argentinas! así ruge el cielo y ruge el mar

My friends on the Distributist Review whose way of thinking frequently escapes me, which is to be expected when you mix me with Latin teachers. I've never quite understood them. Anyways, they recently posted a passionate post about the need to return the land that is currently Isreal to the Palestinians. I will not pretend to be an expert on this conflict and I realidy admit I have utterly no idea what to do with the region or who is in the right, I would like to point out one point, which to me seems glaringly obvious.

When Britain invaded the Malvinas (referred to in the obscene tongue as the Falklands) and kicked the Argentineans out, Buenos Aires has but once attempted to use force to retrieve the islands in a misled move (te lo agradezco, señor Galtieri, pero no). Not a single British person died in the Argentinean invasion, and the Brits killed numerous Argentinean soldiers in rather shady ways. Regardless, Argentina has kept up a peaceful campaign for sovereignty for hundreds of years. What do we get from everyone? Nothing but apathy and support for the English. While I'm sure Isreal probably isn't exactly a defenseless lamb, the Palestineans wage guerilla warfare (the justice of this I will not dispute) for years and years. What do they get? Passionate cries for the return of Isreal to their hands. Why this inconsitency? Personally I blame it on partisan politics which pretty much consumes everyone is this country, including most "non-partisan" people. As a future member of the Partido Popular Democrático, I have absolutely no stake in the Democratic vs. Republican idiotic war. however, this still does not seem able to explain the entire situation. England and the U.S. have been committed to screwing Latin America since day one, and renewed their resolve in 1810. And no one cares. Surprisingly we Latinos still like the U.S. somewhat, and everyone is still to busy having cat-fights over Isreal vs. Palestine. But that's ok, because unlike everyone else, we always are just absolutely extatic, which is perhaps why everyone hates us so much. q la vida es un carnaval! y es más bello vivir cantando! =)

In Honor of our New President

2009-01-20T09:33:00.001-05:00

As long as we are making fun of politicians here, why don't you visit this site:

in honor of our new President?

Let's get it partisan in here

2009-01-18T21:41:00.005-05:00

I just had an extremely fascetious conversation with a friend about how we were going to overthrow the U.S. government and elect only celebrities to the entire government. We are convinced that the Rihanna administration backed by the Oprah lead House and Ellen DeGeneres senate with the protection of Britney Spears (Department of National Security), Jessica Simpson (CIA), and Halle Berry (NSA) would do just as good as our government in general. And they might actually get something done, even if it is only painting the White House Bajan Lime green. Anyways, this prompted me to get partisan and systematically insult everyone in America. The following are stereotypes and are meant to be offensive. I imagine that in my Twain immitation today I'm going to tick everyone off. Excellent! We need some hot water - "it keeps us clean."

So...

Libertarians: generally correct but unable to think about anything besides how much fewer taxes they could pay. And screw airport security, I want my Axe spray on my carry on and I want it NOW!

Republican partisans: Generally welmeaning individuals who shun the amazingly un-international American media and vote against whatever is currently popular. Stand up for life and human rights in any circumstance, unless the humans involved are Mexicans from Honduras, Brazil, and Argentina. Classically conditioned to interpret everything as government intervention

Republican Politicians: also generally welmeaning individuals who think that their job is to follow the Democrats off the side of the cliff and be sure to pay lip service to the abortion issue and hard talk those Mexicans from Argentina. Prone to hypocrasy, feeblemindeness, partisanship, corruption and the lot.

Democratic Partisans: Welmeaning people who seem to think that the Democratic party stands for something. Stupider but more reliable than Republicans. Classically conditioned to see inequality in everything, including the alphabet and graphing calculators.

Democratic Politicians - not welmeaning individuals who want to screw everyone to the greatest extent possible. For some unknown reason everybody loves them. Have all of the faults of the Republican party times a couple million.

The American Media - the worst aggregate on earth whose only job is to uneducate the American public by focusing more on Paris Hilton's DUI, Kate Hudson's new golf partner, and Obama's new dog than on international issues. Earth to the media: Africa and Latin America DO exist and it would be nice to hear about them every once in a while. And be sure to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of whatever the financial advisors tell you.

And everyone wonders why I'm moving to Latin America... =P

Sol Y Viento

2009-01-12T15:52:00.001-05:00

Do any of you know anything about the movie "Sol y Viento?" I have to watch it sometime in Spanish class and it seems to be of the anti-European sort.

The balanced trade part

2009-01-07T19:46:00.005-05:00

I happen to be under the tutelage of one of the founders of the balanced trade movement. As such I feel that I should at least mention it once on this blog.

While my professor works out all of the intellectual kinks of the system, I wanted to address the more common sense part of the problem. Now there are generally considered to be two philosophies of international trade: free trade and protectionism. However, my professor points out that there are actually four. Free trade (U.S.), Protectionism (Argentina, I think), Mercantilism (China), and Balanced trade (which no country has yet been smart enough to adopt). Now, free trade is just if you leave everything alone, everything is just handy dandy. I think the law of entropy can speak for itself. Protectionism is a proven failure and in all reality is not even protectionism, it's political favoritism. Mercantilism purposely creates imbalances in trade, which do help the exporting country, but this system is absolutely doomed to failure in the long run.

Now balanced trade I think is most easily understood with an analogy to the microeconomic level. A household cannot continually but well above it's means, or eventually the creditors will come around. If income signfinies exports and expenditures imports, these two must eventually equal out. While a suplus of income would not be necessarily bad, it's sort of pointless if there are expenditures to match in some way (say putting in savings account, investmnet, rennovations, what have you). similarly a country cannot continually receive from the world more than it gives out. Now I realize that Warren Buffet's importation certificates plan seems like a weird thing for a Distributist, but personally I believe that if there in one instance of govenrment intervention which can help right now, it is importation certificates, not stimulus packages or whatever else the Bush/Obama people can dream up. Furthermore, the government has regulartory power over the economy, and this would be regulation, and the government also wouldn't be able to decide what is imported or not (like tariffs do). All it does is ensure that we have an exchange with the world, and that we're aren't getting stuffed like some spoiled child until we burst.

And of course, Shakespeare put the whole point into 1 line of blank verse
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be"

HAPPY NEW YEAR

2008-12-31T16:52:00.001-05:00

Have an amazing 2009!

btw Old Fashioned Liberal, how are plans coming for the M4L???

Applied Distributism: The Music Industry

2008-12-29T22:30:00.002-05:00

This is probably preaching to the choir, but here goes. Distributism is rather difficult to practice on many of the basic levels, simply because EVERYTHING is a chain now a days. Food is the easiest one I can think of (clothing is nigh impossible), but even that can be very difficult. One industry which is rather easy to challenge the instutition is music. Now supposing that any of you actually listen to modern music (say, after 1600, just kidding), in my opinion, independent artists are the way to go. Over all popular music is generally mediocre and rather prepackaged (though there are some jewels, and [especially in my case] many people who I would like to save from their current course [Rihanna for one, she's going to waste and it's driving me insane]). Indenpendent music can be hard to get two, but it is generally rewarding. Furthermore, given the Godsend sometimes referred to as youtube, if you can just get one foot into an obscure genre, suddenly you have a variety of artists/albums/songs to get you started.

My personal example was my discovery of the virtually non-existant genre known as Christian Reggaeton. I absolutely love the sound of reggaeton, but I had given up on finding an artist, actually, even one song, that didn't degrade women, praise alcohol and/or drug abuse (not that I mind the substances, but I do mind the abuse), and violence. However, I somehow providentially stumbled on a Christian Reggaeton song on youtube. That song had links to a whole variety of similar songs, and before you know it I was inducted into that genre. (I should say here that I have no problem whatsoever with secular music; however, I do draw the line when lyrics turn to fragments of antisocial personality disorder.) Anyways, this genre is so small that amazon.com has a whopping 2 cds to offer. Yes, 2. This, of course, promps another interesting discussion. Is Amazon.com considered an enemy of Distributism? At first it does seem to be a large corporation, but perhaps it's just a way of conventiently locating a whole variety of producers into an easy to find format (now I have a feeling that Amazon is somehow different from Walmart and chain stores, but I haven't been able to isolate why.) Would it be more Distributist to buy directly from the little known record companies, or are we overreacting to Amazon's sheer size. The true answer to this question most likely needs someone with a knowledge of Amazon's inner workings to truly decide yes or no. But in the mean time, any opinions/information would be most appreciated.

Plato Unintentionally Satirizing the Absence of Subsidiarity

2008-12-19T08:32:00.003-05:00

Go to this website to see some errors of Plato. All the errors could have been avoided if he had recognized that the government is incapable of knowing subtleties of psychology and morality that parents and individuals know naturally. For the complete text of the Republic, go to Project Gutenberg.

Que se vaya a este sitio de web a ver unos errores de Platón. Todos los errores se podría haber evitado si Platón hubiera conocido que es impossible que el gobierno conociera los asuntos bien pequeños de la psichología y la moralidad. Los padres y la gente común ya saben esas cosas naturalmemte. Para ver el texto entero de La República de Platón, Vaya al Project Gutenberg.

The Benefit of Big Business

2008-12-19T07:07:00.002-05:00

Consider a large business. The larger they are, the better they will be at canvassing the globe for good, rare, impossibly unlocal products, services, ideas, employees, techniques, entrepreneurs, et cetera. Whe? Because the small business can't afford it. They are also better at employing large numbers of people and doing large things that may need to be done. Why? Because the small business can't afford it. And as far as I know, they have no other benefits over small business. Is this grounds for forbidding their existence?

Saludos de tu centrista medio zurdo medio liberal

2008-12-18T11:15:00.005-05:00

Acabo de rendir el examen de perspectiva política más cortito del mundo. Me salió que soy centrista, justo en la frontera entre libertariano y zurdo. Me parece que me pega bien, ya que no rechazo ni acepto completamente al papel del gobierno en los asuntos sociales tantos como los económicos. Claro que había muchos errores cometidos por el gobierno (mira el lío que es la política latinoaméricana) pero también puede ser muy buena la influencia gubermental (por ejemplo, la ilegalización del aborto).

The Austrian School Declares War Upon Distributism

2008-12-11T17:32:00.002-05:00

Acá hay un enlace a un artículo que me da bastante rabia.

¡Qué lo leas y después te rías conmigo! ¿Por cuál razón será que les cuesta tanto enterder la perspective nuestra?????

What's Wrong With Distributism?

A summary presentation of why I'm a monetarist

2008-12-08T16:19:00.005-05:00

The current head of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Bernanke, is definitively an activist when it comes to monetary policy just like his predecessor Alan Greenspan. Now both of them were into countercycical policy, which I think they both are doing/ have done a good job with it, but I believe that we should follow monetarist non-activist policy.

While cycical policy sounds nice (we're going to get rid of recessions!) in the end I think it only aggravates the business cycle. My main criticism are time lag and overexaggeration. First of all, as noted in the previous post, there is such lag in the changing of monetary (and even more so fiscal) policy that frequently the policy ends up being procyclical instead of countercyclical. I'd do a graph if I knew how, but I don't. Procylclical is just as stupid. Granted that you'd hope the time lags would turn it into countercyclical, aiming to lose is never a good way to go. My theory is that is we adopt the monetarist policy, the recessions and inflationary gaps might be just as bad for a while, but if we stop cosntantly jumping from on side to antoher, the business cycle which behave much like the law of large numbers in statistics, and the swings will slow down because of the central tendency of the policy.

When Providence Intervenes in Bad Economics

2008-12-05T21:38:00.002-05:00

Now I'm not sure how the readers of this blog (the few of them that there are) feel about President Bush, particularly his economic policies, anyways...

When President Bush came into office, he brought with him a policy of tax cuts. At the time the economy was booming, and I'm really not sure what the argument was behind it, but it went through. Anyways, tax cuts would have the effect of pumping up aggregate demand when it was already rising along with GDP and price level, so inflation could have easily resulted. However, by the time it was actually implemented, we were in a recession, so the tax cuts worked wonderfully in expanding the economy as it was shrinking. Anyways, is Bush a good economist? no, but Providence seems to have intervened. =)

An Alliteration Aptitude test.

2008-12-01T09:36:00.003-05:00

Here is what causes recessions after inflation:

Inflation=An unfunded increase in the money supply.

An unfunded increase in the money supply in America=Unfounded (not unfunded) Creation of Credit by Creditors.

Unfounded Creation of Credit by Creditors=Inordinate Increase in Insolvency because of debt + spending.

Inordinate Increase In Insolvency because of debt + spending = Stopping of spending out of fear of insolvency.

Stopping of spending = Recession (Rah Rah Rah! Recessions Ruin the Ruinous Reprecussions of inflation before they become unmanagable!)

As all the Bailouts and Bank Buyings are an increase in government spending (read: inflation), they will Help, not hurt, the Heave in the Health of the economy known as a recession. And a recession is made to be hurt. This is why Bush's Bank Buying Binge Be'th Bad Business. Even if it didn't increase the Socialist Status of the States.

Two Tail notes: I am not Sounding Sarcastic So Some people won't believe me; I just do it because it is fun to make Alliterations Ad nauseam. No Way Will We Want this Worthy post Translated To The Tounge of Illustrious Iberia.

Boricua!!!

2008-11-30T21:52:00.005-05:00

As a random side note, I would like to thank the Distributist Review for introducing me to the wonderful song Dégénération by Mes Aïeux! It's amazing! Though I have to comment that the beat about half way through switches to the Dem Bow, which means that reggaeton is oficially penetrating the entire music industry. And speaking of the Dem Bow, that brings me to one of my favorite subjects, La isla del encanto!

Puerto Rico is a particular cause of mine, and bucking the great Yankee orthodoxy, I support complete independence from the U.S. So here is a summary list of my reasons for taking this position:

1. State boundries should roughly reflect national identity. Puerto Rico is of the Latin tradition; we are disctinctly Anglo.

2. As a distributist, I like little nations. And while Chesterton had his eye on France for the first distributist state, I personally believe that the West Indies and South Pacific Islands are the best place to start. They are not nearly as economically obsessed as many of the larger nations; and they're more comunal, less-competetive culture would adapt better to a lack of monopoly. While Caribbeans are laid back, that is not to say that they are not hard workers and tend to be very professional, something which foreigners are surprised by when they arrive believing shirts to optional all throughout the island.

3. Due to their rather unimportant world status and size, I believe that each locality tends to be more self-sufficient already, as the cost of importing things from the continents can be very expensive.

4. All of the Latin Islands and some of the Anglo ones are majorly Catholic, which Chesterton believed would be a crucial/extremely helpful asset to any potentially distributist country.

This list is awful and very short, but I just wanted to get the debate flowing! Please tell me what you think! =)

La inmigración ilegal: un resumen

2008-11-25T08:41:00.007-05:00

Ya que he publicado esa serie de ensayos sobre los rasgos ecónomicos de la inmigración ilegal en los Estados Unidos (por ahora no incluyo los en la República Dominicana o la Argentina o cualquier otro país que también padece de este problema), me toca a mí proponer una política bien clara y directa para resolver al crisis.

Pues, primero hay el asunto acerca de la ética del inmigrante. Muchos me han dicho que tenemos que echarlos a todos los inmigrantes ilegales ya que han violado la ley. No soy teólogo, pero igual, estoy de acuerdo con los obispos de ese país que dicen que sólo infingieron una ley civil, como si estuvieran sobresaliendo la velocidad máxima o otro "crimen" del mismo nivel moral. No estoy de acuerdo con ellos, pero el pecado no es tan grande que justifica la deportación.

Entonces, recomiendo que se estableciera un programa de amnestía en el cual los inmigrantes se pueden hacer cuidadanos con tal que rindan bien una prueba de seguridad (para que se sepa que no sean terroristas), y tal vez algunas otras cosas. Tal programa no mataría a nuestra economía y tampoco tendría el costo y todas las dificultades sociales de una deportación de masas.

Pero lo anterior sólo es mi opinión, y (cuando recién le eché una mirada) no soy infalible. Pues si ves cualquier error, favor de corregirme en seguida sin retraso alguno! =)

Our Dear Illegals and the Economy: Part the Third

2008-11-23T17:34:00.001-05:00

Graph missing yet again =/

The debate surrounding illegal immigration is one of those tangled webs that we, humanity, are so fond of weaving. Analyses of the problem are flowing in abundance, as are the fallacies and narrow ideas. Everyone has an answer, and that answer seems to only to respond to a very small section of the question. Why – because we are leaving things out. As humans, we cannot possibly see the entire scope of the problem, but we shall valiantly try.

This is about the time that someone would greet you with that infamous phrase from that equally infamous musical set in the 1930s in Salzburg, Austria which has as its protagonist a novice named Maria; however, I will spare you. Illegal immigrants are foreign nationals who either enter the country without following proper protocol as established by the United States Immigration services, and those who have entered the country legally, but have overstayed the limits specified by the Federal Government. While the most publicized subgroup are Mexicans who come across the southern border of the U.S., less than fifty percent fit into this category. Illegal immigrants in this country come from all over the earth: other Latin American countries, Asia, Africa, and in very few cases, Europe. This is significant because it demonstrates how most border-oriented enforcement measures will not solve the problem, and even if draconian measures are enacted, it would still be very possible to cross the border. Walls, excessive force, etc. are not the solution to the problem. While some illegal immigrants are even rich refugees, this analysis will concern mainly those whom society always thinks about, namely the Latin Americans (not just the Mexicans).

Now we must ask the question: what effect do illegal immigrants have on the economy? Are they a positive or a negative influence? Could our economy function without them? Many say that they are a negative force in the economy because they steal tax dollars and send them abroad. This is true to an extent: illegal immigrants do not pay as much in taxes as do legal inhabitants. However, they do pay sales taxes and sometimes they are able to become “quasi”-legal through fraud and pay income taxes as well. This said, illegal immigrants do tend to utilize many social services, and almost certainly do constitute a net drain on taxpayer dollars. Given that, tax money is not the best and certainly not the only measure for their economic effect, so we must keep looking. Illegal immigrants do indeed lower prices for things such as agricultural products and housing repairs. So the United States citizen does pay less for goods, but more for taxes, essentially, their effect is more or less neutral. While we can almost certainly never be exactly sure of how much money they cost us in taxes and then how much money they save us in the market, it seems most likely that their effect cannot be said to be either positive or negative only from their price. Here, economics is not as important as socioeconomics. The truth of the matter is that if many places within the United States with to fix the problem of illegal immigration, they will have to settle for a great restructuring of the socioeconomic system. Ceteris paribus, prices in southern California will shoot up and similarly across the board prices will be higher (with very high price indexes). However, this should (Government willing) decrease taxes. While in most places the effect should be balancing, Southern Florida in particular will have to incent an entirely new system to deal with construction, as the price of living there (already high) will shoot up again. This could decrease economic growth in the region, but yet it might run out the migratory citizens there, creating a more stable and less touristy economy. Essentially, illegal immigrants are essential to the economy as we know it know, and to sudden remove all illegal immigrants (by whatever means, amnesty, deportation, etc) will involve the structure of the economy changing. Are “us Americans” ready?

The real danger with illegal immigrants present is the shadow economy. Obviously, being sure of what the shadow economy is going to do can be rather difficult. This can create unknown effects on the economy and creates a quandary for political culture. However, the biggest threat is the potential for terrorist activity. Not knowing who is here, or even how many people are here, is a significant threat. If some sort of amnesty program were adopted, this would cause an example of the prisoner’s dilemma, the U.S. would be able to look for potential terrorists among the unknown population and the formerly-illegal immigrants could earn higher wages and participate in society, which leads us to our next point on inquiry.

Do illegal immigrants work for lower wages and benefits than legal workers? Using a marginal cost-benefit analysis, the answer is clearly yes. There are fines and other penalties involved with hiring illegal workers, creating a marginal cost for using their labor. Since legal laborers have no such legal cost, if illegal workers were paid the same, it would be ludicrous to hire them, since they have the risk with no reward. Their labor must be cheaper because somehow the cost of legal problems must be outweighed by the marginal benefit of paying them lower wages. Everyone, I am sure, will admit that illegal immigrants are frequently hired, so positive economics informs us that they do work for substandard wages. Furthermore, illegal immigrants cannot unionize and have no legal power to protect them from oppression (another element adding to the marginal benefit of hiring them). While I have faith in the United States public that they are not all oppressed, I am sure that it does happen in some cases.

In a previous hasty essay, I pointed out the entire lack of a statistical correlation between illegal immigration and the unemployment rate. Some may think that because there is no proof that they do not cause unemployment, they must. While it does seem probable that illegal immigrants might find areas where unemployment is low, by doing so they assist the economy in approaching the production possibilities frontier. In addition to this, more people in the end means more jobs, so saying that they cause increased unemployment is ceteris paribus and does not take into account the economic growth that illegal immigrants by definition create. By demanding more services, more jobs are created for higher paying jobs, so if the American citizens can rise to the proper educational level, they are actually benefited. In addition, they give economists another issue to be paid to study, so clearly they must be simply wonderful.

In an essay denouncing my economic theory in regards to the subject to the intellectual Madame La Guillotine, Ms. Pride (for whose intellect I have warm respect) pointed out that it would be best if illegal immigrants were to come here legally, and that if they were to do so, we could fling open our doors without reserve. I most heartily agree with Ms. Pride, but there is a slight problem. They cannot come here legally. Lawmakers back during the anti-Japanese bigotry period during WWII lovingly fostered a nice little cancer tumor in the nation by enacting quotas of immigration for certain regions. Instead of having a free-market immigration policy, we must let certain numbers of Europeans in before we can admit Asians, Africans, or Latin Americans. In case no one has noticed, there is not a huge demand for Germans to immigrate here, so we have abnormally low levels of immigration. This essentially creates a price ceiling for immigration, making a disequilibrium price level. The Government in its omniscient wisdom has decided that only certain levels of immigration are good for us and have attempted to tear supply and demand down from their authoritative thrones, and so this folly lead to the status quo. The effects are visualized here: This has caused a shortage in immigration. What happens when there is a shortage? Illegal activities attempt to fill the gap. As I am sure we will all heartily agree it is conveniently possible to immigrate illegal to the United States. Need I say more?

The solution to our problem is not some myopic, draconian, legalistic punishment of illegal aliens, nor is it the completely free amnesty which ignores the terrorist threat. The solution lies in recognizing those pesky twins known as supply and demand which lawyers (whose infinite wisdom got us into this mess) know to manipulate so very well. Break down the malicious damn of immigration quotas and its bureaucracy! And now Ms. Pride and I will leave to debate an even more fascinating and foreign subject which has never ceased to befuddle the rest of the world – the foreign and independent Republic of Texas.

Our Dear Illegals and the Economy: Part the Second

2008-11-22T21:16:00.001-05:00

Graphs won't show up... argh! =)

The United States has a terminal illness – immigration cancer – caused by the idea that illegal immigrants are flooding the nation increasing unemployment wherever their politically and economically infected feet may land. While many believe that increases in unemployment in certain states are due to illegal immigration, their belief is an example of both the false-cause fallacy and the fallacy of composition, and also analyzes the economy ceteris paribus without taking into account other forces. Furthermore, many proposed solutions to the problem are myopic and do not bow to the power of the economic forces at work.

The first question essential to this inquiry is: is there any statistical correlation between high concentrations of illegal immigrants and unemployment? According to data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is no correlation whatsoever. The two highest unemployment rates are found in Rhode Island and Michigan, neither of which has a large concentration of illegal immigrants (at least when compared to other regions). States with exceedingly high concentrations like California and Florida had almost identical rates to Illinois and North Carolina, both low concentration states. Furthermore, the Northern and Central states had similarly high rates when compared to the Pacific Coast. A scatter plot of this data reveals that the relationship between the two is extremely weak. The truth is that there is no statistically viable link between concentration of illegal immigrants and unemployment.

Consequently, it remains clear that blaming unemployment solely or significantly on illegal immigration is a false-cause fallacy. Furthermore, if one were to argue that the statistical evidence above is not valid because of a specific example where say agricultural workers were replaced by illegal immigrants, it would be the fallacy of composition. While this it is true that illegal workers act as a substitute good and drive down the demand for legal labor, thus decreasing the both the price and quantity of legal labor, arguing that this causes higher levels of unemployment is clearly ceteris paribus, since there is no statistical link between the two. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants do not pose some sort of diabolical threat to the poor of America, instead, their real danger is in their burdening of the tax base as well as the shadow economy, which they create with their illegal status, which could hide any number of dangers. Therefore we do look to a solution, but not for unemployment caused by illegal immigration.

Many believe that the solution to this issue is by harnessing the power of the market forces. I entirely concur. One market force which we could seek to control is demand. By slowing sliming the demand for illegal labor, the shadow economy would waste away, because I assure you that most illegal workers do not come here for our smiling faces and warm hospitality for workers of all kinds, legal and illegal. They come because there are economic incentives for doing so, and by eliminating those incentives we can use demand where supply has eluded us and fight the status quo. Some possibilities include using Federal funding to entice rogue state and local governments into no longer flaunting Federal law and harboring illegal activities. Improved resources for ICE and tougher penalties for businesses could increase the risk of investing in illegal labor, driving down demand. The potential effects of these policies are visualized here: However, all the above policies could have significant side-effects, and so must be pursued with caution. Furthermore, even if they work perfectly, the price of illegal labor drops (as the graph demonstrates), which means that the illegal immigrants left will work for even less and be even more dependent on government handouts and the like, but as least the quantity would decrease. Perhaps we should look to demand’s accomplice supply to find an option with more desirability.

Decreasing the supply of illegal immigration would indeed help to remedy the problem. If there were a decrease in supply of illegal labor, the market would adjust and the substitute good of legal labor would rise in demand, increasing both the price and quantity of legally accountable labor. Such a harnessing of the market power of supply is visualized here: However, supply is not a force that we can affect with force. A border fence and increased abilities of the Border Patrol do not solve as no more that 50% of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. come across the border; the other half have overstayed their visas. Furthermore, allowing the Border Patrol to shoot immigrants crossing the border is similar to execute traffic violators. It is a civil not a criminal act and allowing the Border Patrol freedom to end the life or seriously wound an immigrant is unethical and immoral and cannot be tolerated in civil society. Furthermore, such increased funding would extensively strain the governmental budgets, which is the main economic defect of the current system anyways, and so doing so would be rather pointless and counter-productive. There is one policy which outshines all the rest; open the legal floodgates. The current United States immigration process is notoriously complex and difficult and it has taken even ten years to get the foreign spouse of a military personal into the country. If the potential illegal immigrants could more easily come legally, they would, as they would work for higher wages than with the current system. This incentive would prove irresistible, and the supply of illegal labor would be dramatically replaced by legal labor. This would decrease the supply of illegal labor, thereby increasing the price and decreasing quantity of illegal labor (as demonstrated on the graph). That is the only incentive that any company, large or small, needs to switch from illegal to legal labor. Release the legal river of immigration and watch the market forces of supply and demand mend remove infections in the current economic system.

We cannot by force of arms and law defeat the challenge of illegal immigration, but we can utilize the power of supply and demand in order to save the economy from itself without massive expenditures or immoral actions. The solution to invasion of illegal labor is the invasion of legal labor. If we succeed with the powers of the market forces, other countries with massive illegal immigration like Argentina and the Dominican Republic will take note and follow suit. May all workers who wish to come do so and flood the country – legally.

Our Dear Illegals and the Economy

2008-11-21T17:24:00.001-05:00

I've decided to be brave a post a series of three essays written about illegal immigration, one a day for the next three days. I'll be curious to see people's reactions. =)

What effect does illegal immigration have on the US economy especially in places of high concentration?

Let the invasion begin. Whether or not the citizens of the United States would like to admit it, illegal immigrants from the brother American nation-states are essential to the economy as we know it today, despite their negative effects. Though Mexican and other Latino immigrants comprise only fifty percent of illegal immigrants in the country, they are of the most interest because of their importance and ubiquity. In order to analyze the status quo, California and Florida will represent the overall economic functioning of the “shadow economy.”

Halcyon Southern California is teeming with illegal immigrants. Here the primary function of the shadow economy is to provide a cheap source of easily controllable labor to the agricultural sector. Because of the ability to provide sub-standard wages, agricultural businesses tend to hire the illegal workers as opposed to legal workers which cost a good deal more and also have the ability to unionize after the example of César Chávez. This drives down the cost of produce, shifting the supply curve, and lowering the price of food. In the economy of Southern California, illegal immigrants are the substitute good which drives down the demand for legal labor, while the supply stays constant. This lowers the equilibrium price for legal labor. However, despite allegations that “those Mexicans are taking Americans jobs,” the truth of the matter is that very few “real” Americans would be willing to take those jobs, especially with the alternative of welfare and other “Big Brother” governmental programs which help to strangle the jobs market. Nevertheless, illegal workers do have some access to social services such as health care, which drains these programs, causing a drive towards higher taxes. While some think that taxing the illegal immigrants as well is the solution (though I am totally at a loss as to how they plan to do this), because of the low income they receive from the market, illegal immigrants would not be able to pay the taxes into the system anyways. Furthermore, due to their low wages, illegal immigrant families cannot invest in human capital and the low prices of everything associated with them (wages, food prices, etc…) constantly works to slow the velocity of the economy: both these aspects serve to damage the future of the economy. So while illegal immigrants are crucial to the functioning of the economy as we know it, the effects of the shadow economy are negative upon the economic health of this country.

Very similar observations can be made in Southern Florida. In contrast to Southern California, where the illegal workforce is primarily agricultural, the shadow economy on Gasparilla Island near Fort Myers is concerned with construction. Whenever a hurricane sweeps through, the previously non-existent Hispanic sallies forth from their previously unknown magical forest to get businesses and homes running again quickly and cheaply. They also provide a cheap source of labor for remodeling and landscaping. However, illegal labor is balanced out with “real” American labor by a rather ingenious system of only hiring the illegal workers during the summer when all the tenants have returned to Manhattan. During the winter when the island is heavily populated, only white American citizens do landscaping. While this system does provide a way to protect one’s house cheaply without insurance (since the great probability of damage drive the price of insurance up past the cost of entirely rebuilding the house), again the drain on the economy by the use of various social services and the loss of economic velocity is still present, and if America would like to remedy the situation, a very drastic restructuring of the socioeconomic system must occur.

Positive economics informs us that illegal labor is a drain on the economy, yet it is essential for the system of the status quo to remain the same. So the American public must now look to normative economics to find a way out of this quandary; the answer still eludes our grasp,

Chavez and Bush (Chavez y Bush)

2008-11-20T23:35:00.004-05:00

Just in case you didn't know yet, Hugo Chavez complemented Bush for the bank buyout, saying that Bush was to the left of Chavez for doing it. More Chavezish than Chavez...Even if the economy "needed" such a buyout (and they didn't, but I'll explain why later), this ought to (but won't) worry us so that we repent of the buyout no matter what the economic consequences because we DON'T want our nation to be like his!

Si todavía no sabes, Hugo Chavez dijo que el Presidente Bush es aún más zurdo que él mismo ya que el gobierno estadounidense acaba de comprar un montón de bancos. Si la economía necesitara que el gobierno comprara a los bancos (y no es verdad; que explicaré más tarde), nos preocupamos por esta situación porque seguramente no queremos que el gobierno estadounidense sea como el venezolano.

An Inquiry into the Distribution of the Wealth of Peoples: An Inadequate Introduction to Distributism

2008-11-20T13:45:00.001-05:00

An Inquiry into the Distribution of the Wealth of Peoples

Distributism is an Outline of Sanity. While laissez-faire capitalists attack it as socialism under any other name, and socialists are unable to understand the difference between the two theories, Distributism is quite distinct from both. Essentially, Distributism is the startling idea that there is more to life than raw, mathematical economic growth or equality of income.

The theory was originally developed by a small circle of friends headed by G.K. Chesterton and Hilare Belloc around the turn of the twentieth century. The foundational text of the theory is the Outline of Sanity, in which Chesterton lays out the key criticisms of the laissez-faire capitalist approach (as was being practiced in the England of his day) and discusses what a healthy socioeconomic situation should look like. However, Distributism was then, and still is, and nascent theory, and there are no dogmatic policy recommendations in the text, instead, today’s Distributists must approach the status quo with independent analysis in order to develop beneficial ways to arrive at Chesterton and Belloc’s vision.

While the theory was officially born of that circle of friends, the foundations and inspiration of the movement are found in the Papal Encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadregisimo Anno, which outline Catholic Social teaching. This being said, it is necessary to define the theory.

Distributism mainly deals with the idea of property. While typical capitalists claim that their theory is the most supportive of private property, Distributism claims to supersede the laissez-faire doctrine. Perhaps the criticism is best explained by Chesterton himself: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” Everyone should own a reasonable amount of property. Socialism wants to abolish the ideal; Capitalism favors the concentration of property into the hands of an oligarchy. Both of these are the enemies of freedom, as they deprive the majority of humanity of their individual freedom and power that comes with property. While Capitalists rely on the expression of the “free market” in order to justify their theory, when this happens, Capitalism concentrates wealth more and more, until it begins to look suspiciously like Socialism, except that big business rules instead of big government. And after that, it becomes impossible to distinguish between big business and big government, and essentially, we have the exact same thing. Some will almost certainly respond to this with the assertion that “Socialism has failed; Capitalism has succeeded.” The Distributists warns that person not to be too hasty. Just because the U.S.S.R. lost the Cold War does not mean that the Capitalist can write off every other economic theory. Furthermore, who is to say that the United States will not crumble tomorrow? The Capitalist cause is not yet won. In the end, both Capitalism and Socialism work to end up in the same place. Distributism vehemently opposes this oligarchy.

However, Distributism must do more that simply oppose the twins Socialism and Capitalism and stand for something on its own. It does indeed fulfill this requirement. Distributism is the unabashed promotion of private property. Every man should own some property and some means of production. “Wage slavery” as Chesterton called it greatly inhibits the freedom of the individual and only serves to continue concentrating wealth. While this is not necessarily a bad thing on a small scale, almost all jobs today are wage jobs. The entrepreneurial class is dying, and this theory seeks to rejuvenate it. According to Chesterton, a large class of entrepreneurs and small business owners would be the most dangerous single socioeconomic arraignment to those who would concentrate power into the hands of a few. Big corporations have great influence in the U.S., while the government is a *tad* too influential in China. Both are enemies of the freedom and self-governance of the populace.

Some attack the theory by arguing that it somehow futility opposes the law of comparative advantage and the division of labor. Perhaps this is true to some extent. However, specialization would clearly continue; however, the theory does indeed oppose specialization to approaches the limits of insanity. For example, having five hundred people all doing one single task over and over and over again in order to make a pin is psychologically damaging. While some would argue that this is necessary to bring down the price and increase output, perhaps the world does not need so many pins. Perhaps if the process were unspecialized, pins would also be expensive enough to make a wage on, without creating an excess of the product. This allows the laborer to maintain his sanity while still meeting the world’s demand for pins.

As the graph demonstrates, a reworking of our economy could indeed make less efficient pin production quite sustainable. If the entire industry went back to smaller shops, the price would increase because of the shift of the supply curve; however, there would not be the drudgery of picking five hundred thousand pins of one production line, and then placing them on the next. Furthermore, if the entire economy switches, then there will be little to no actual change in PPP (purchasing power parity) as workers will both earn and pay more. Distributism does not destroy equilibrium, but it does re-center it with new a new equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity.

Here, it is necessary to note that Distributism is a normative economic theory, not a positive economic theory. Chesterton and Belloc do not claim to be able to buck the stars and control the invisible hand. Instead, they simply realize that there is more to life than what might appear most economically beneficial, and so justify innumerable actions with the shallow claim that it is best for the markets. Furthermore, the Distributist movement reminds the world that “Not all that glitters is gold.”

Distributism has no track record, and so its solvency in the real world is still theoretical. While I believe the Distributist cause is unlike in most of the world’s superpowers, many of the currently marginalized regions hold great promise. Hopefully Distributism will be enacted before they can hurdle themselves down either the Socialist or Capitalist trail of folly. The most promising countries for the implementation of Distributism lie in the Caribbean and the South Pacific islands. While neither capital nor economic growth is particularly noteworthy in these regions, they are smaller and geographically more isolated than their continental counter parts. This already creates an atmosphere of small property holdings and reasonable economic independence from other lands. Furthermore, the island culture also lends itself to Distributism.. Distributism will most likely have to enter the U.S. at the local or state level, as attempting to do so at the Federal level is not only ridiculously unlikely, but also contradictory to the Distributist tendency towards the devolution of powers. Furthermore, the current level of centralization in the U.S. is very high, and fighting the mega-corporations must come from the bottom up.

Distributism is a novelty in economic theories, perhaps because it is not extremist in either direction. The Distributist model fits the socioeconomic lock of life and threatens the theories long upheld by the world. Thus Capitalism and Socialism both attack Distributism desperately, hoping to retain their deathly grip on the freedom of humanity. Only then do they run into a surprising Distributist who never knew that he was one: Thomas Jefferson.

2008-11-19T11:41:00.004-05:00

Bienvendidos a mi blog muy recién nacido para discutir y (espero) propagar el distribuismo monetarista de comercio exterior equilibrado. Aunque este blog está dirigido hacia los temas de la economía y la política, esas dos materias no se pueden analizar en sí, sin tener en cuenta todas las demás materias. Pues, sentíte libre para discutir cualquier cosa, pero si es posible, favor de vincularla con la ideología acá presentada. =)