Fri 25 Jan 2008
The problem with me reading a book like Economics in One Lesson is that I have nothing to compare his suppositions to except my own limited experience and literary examples. My knowledge base is almost zero on this subject although I do own a fair amount of common sense which generally stands in for wisdom at my house.
I very much appreciated it when he used the examples of Robinson Crusoe and Swiss Family Robinson in chapter 15 How the Price System Works.
A Swiss Family Robinson, perhaps, finds this problem a little easier to solve. It has more mouths to feed, but it also has more hands to work for them. It can practice division and specialization of labor. The father hunts; the mother prepares the food; the children collect firewood. But even the family cannot afford to have one member of it doing endlessly the same thing, regardless of the relative urgency of the common need he supplies and the urgency of other needs still unfilled. When the children have gathered a certain pile of firewood, they cannot be used simply to increase the pile. It is soon time for one of them to be sent, say, for more water. The family too has the constant problem of choosing among alternative applications of labor, and, if it is lucky enough to have acquired guns, fishing tackle, a boat, axes, saws and so on, of choosing among alternative applications of labor and capital. It would be considered unspeakably silly for the wood-gathering member of the family to complain that they could gather more firewood if his brother helped him all day, instead of getting the fish that were needed for the family dinner. It is recognized clearly in the case of an isolated individual or family that one occupation can expand only at the expense of all other occupations.
The final quote from chapter 15 also seemed to bring it all down to common sense:
It follows that it is just as essential for the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries should be allowed to die as that growing industries should be allowed to grow. For the dying industries absorb labor and capital that should be released for the growing industries. It is only the much vilified price system that solves the enormously complicated problem of deciding precisely how much of tens of thousands of different commodities and services should be produced in relation to each other. These otherwise bewildering equations are solved quasi-automatically by the system of prices, profits and costs. They are solved by this system incomparably better than any group of bureaucrats could solve them. For they are solved by a system under which each consumer makes his own demand and casts a fresh vote, or a dozen fresh votes, every day; whereas bureaucrats would try to solve it by having made for the consumers, not what the consumers themselves wanted, but what the bureaucrats decided was good for them. Yet though the bureaucrats do not understand the quasi-automatic system of the market, they are always disturbed by it. They are always trying to improve it or correct it, usually in the interests of some wailing pressure group. What some of the results of their intervention are, we shall examine in succeeding chapters.
I also thought it was interesting in light of today’s news about our extra tax refund. While I am happy to take the money and run, I can’t help thinking about what is really going on and how easily bought we must be as a people. Somehow $800 is supposed to make us all feel good about the economy. Oh, what tangled webs we weave comes to mind. Oh, and don’t forget the Mimimum Tax Penalty. If they give you too much money back they have built into the system a way of recovering your money.
So anyone want to discuss this current tax refund?
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

It seems to be just a feel-good thing. I don’t think the government has a clue what to do about the economy. One thing that has bothered me for a long time is the lament that we are not savers (I use that in the collective sense–our family saves a lot), which is bad, but then we are told that if we don’t spend, that’s bad too because consumption is 2/3 or 3/4 of the economy! So, what gives? Do we save or do we spend?
I am amused by the refund because, if I understand it correctly (and I may not), anyone who paid taxes last year and didn’t make over X amount, will receive a $600 refund (for a single person). My son paid $23 in federal taxes last year, and made far less than X. Will he actually receive $600??? He’ll be thrilled, of course, but something doesn’t seem right about all this. Of course, we’ll advise him to save it, too, so that probably negates the supposed benefit of doing it.
Comment by Kathleen (January 25, 2008 @ 12:26 pm )
If he doesn’t rush out a buy a washing machine or something it won’t help the economy this election cycle
Otoh, I am sure he will be one of the few with money left to spend in the next election cycle.
Comment by Cindy (January 25, 2008 @ 12:33 pm )
My first thought is that I wonder what would happen if we all sent it back with a note telling them to really fix things rather than buy us off with a creative form of deficit spending.
Comment by Brandy (January 25, 2008 @ 1:04 pm )
As Kathleen points out, 70% of the economic activity in this country is aimed at providing people with stuff for their own private use. If the public mood leads people to rein in their discretionary spending, it will cause the economy to contract, which could very well lead people to cinch their belts, and so on down the spiral. The rebate is not intended to boost the economy directly, it is intended to keep people in a spending mood long enough to weather some rough economic trends.
What I still can’t wrap my mind around is the 70% figure. How do you sustain an economy where only 30% of the money flow is aimed at generating further wealth? Isn’t there an important difference between spending $15,000 on a refrigerator truck and spending it on a speedboat?
Comment by Rick Saenz (January 25, 2008 @ 1:23 pm )
Where is the money coming from? Are they printing more to provide this “rebate”? Won’t that just cause more inflation which will mean prices will rise which means people will not be spending as much…and the cycle continues?
Steve said the “rebate” is just sending the tax rebates we would get (IF we get a rebate) a bit early, like borrowing against it. I’m not sure what would happen in the case of Kathleen’s son. I don’t understand how it would be a rebate or refund in the case of those who don’t pay federal taxes, which I understand is over half the people in the country now.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to use the money to buy an ounce of gold.
Comment by Carmon (January 25, 2008 @ 1:47 pm )
Mish Shedlock just published an excellent post called Changing Social Attitudes About Debt. Please read it, and click through to read the first article he mentions, about the Atlanta dentist. Then think about the fact that the only reasons to continue paying on an underwater mortgage (where the loan balance exceeds the value of the house) are ethical, not financial or legal.
Comment by Rick Saenz (January 25, 2008 @ 2:00 pm )
Carmon,
Where is the money coming from? Are they printing more to provide this “rebate”? Won’t that just cause more inflation which will mean prices will rise which means people will not be spending as much…and the cycle continues?
According to Mish Shedlock, the government has not increased the money supply for at least a year, and Gary North agrees with him. The additional money in the system comes from foreigners who lend back to us the dollars we pay them for stuff, primarily the Chinese. (I’m not saying that this is any better than simply printing money, just different.)
Steve said the “rebate” is just sending the tax rebates we would get (IF we get a rebate) a bit early, like borrowing against it.
I don’t think this is true. Technically, what is happening is that you are getting a credit against your 2008 taxes. But so that you’ll have the money in hand before mid-2009, they’ll be sending you an advance on the money you’ll save then in May or June of 2008. You’ll “repay” that advance in 2009; if you received a $1200 rebate in 2008, you’ll owe the government the rebated $1200, which will be cancelled out by the $1200 credit.
I don’t understand how it would be a rebate or refund in the case of those who don’t pay federal taxes, which I understand is over half the people in the country now.
It’s all semantics, of course. But now that I’m in the half of the population that doesn’t pay federal taxes, I’ll point out that anyone who earns anything at all still pays taxes that just aren’t called taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, which constitute a 15.3% tax.
Comment by Rick Saenz (January 25, 2008 @ 2:29 pm )
I heard a good analogy on NPR today regarding the “economic stimulus” rebates, forgive me as a paraphrase a little.
The current low & middle class American families are DROWNING in debt. Credit card debt, defaulted mortgages, etc. They are living beyond their means. And yet, our government is telling them to go out and spend! spend! spend! They must save the economy! It all falls on the low & middle class to shop til you drop to fix our economic problems.
It is like asking a beat up, banged up athlete to go in and score the winning point.
What America needs to do is QUIT overspending, quit living outside our means, and that unfortunately means the businesses take a hit.
But why is a recession the fault of the consumer? How about we talk about credit card companies lowering ridiculous fees and rates? How about businesses lowering the prices of food and services?
Why does it fall on the backs of the middle class?
Now, I’ll get my rebate, and I’ll use it. I won’t argue with the government giving me back my own money to start with. But spending it on a big-screen isn’t what America needs to do, for most of us. We need to get away from our debt-crutch and learn to spend what money is truly ours to start with.
Comment by Lindsey @ ETJ (January 25, 2008 @ 4:30 pm )
Yeah, mess up the plans by putting the rebate in a savings account. Or send it back to China in the form of a charitable contribution
But $600 won’t buy an ounce of gold these days.
Comment by Dana (January 25, 2008 @ 7:32 pm )
When will the house of cards come tumbling down?
Comment by Miz Booshay (January 26, 2008 @ 1:17 am )