The New Jersey Star-Ledger poses this Q&A in its editorial, Foreign money to the rescue, January 19:
"Is foreign investment a bad thing? It is not."
This was my comment in response:
That's like asking if drinking water is a bad thing. Depends on how much you drink. Too much water and you upset your electrolytic balance, the brain swells, and you die ... or something like that.
Let's start with some economic basics that the common person can understand. (I have to do that because I am not an economist and I have never read one who has ever gotten economics right over time outside of tightly controlled models ... which is kind of like pouring sand through a funnel into neat little cone-shaped mounds on a beach on a windless, sunny day below the high-tide mark and thinking they are going to last ... but I digress.)
First, if you don't produce something of real value, you are not creating wealth. Money has no "real" value, it has "virtual" value relative to its ability to help exchange things of real value between strangers ... close and far. Money has value if the two parties to a transaction using money BELIEVE the pieces of paper they are using has the exchange value (translatable into real things of real use value -- like food that actually keeps us from starving to death) printed on it ... or something like that.
Now if you take something of real value and you auction it off to people who want it (think it desirable and worthwhile to own, like a house -- hint, hint) with an excess of money to spend (either their own or what they can borrow ... 'cuz that's the job of the Fed to insure we have enough liquidity to get the things we want 'cuz we're a nation of consumers), they will in all likelihood pay more for it than they would have otherwise. If they then turn around and get even MORE money for it than what they paid because others in turn bid higher with the extra money they have or can get ... well, the PRICE of that something will go up. Do I have to say, "DUH!"?
Let's not get too complicated here ... if a nation reduces the amount of real things of value that it produces ... and starts a bidding war on the things of value it does produce ... while the Fed keeps printing money so we can all bid as high as we want for something ('cuz -- you guessed it -- we're consumers now!) what do you think the outcome will be?
And you have economists with mathematical models who tell us this imbalance of real production to virtual wealth is what is real? and can continue indefinitely? and folks fall all over themselves BELIEVING it when they see with their own eyes that the real wealth of our nation has been deteriorating ... while the dollar amount (virtual wealth) of the money supply has been growing?
And now that our money has been siphoned off to the oil producing nations and the goods producing nations because our vaunted economic leaders thought it better to pass along windfall profits in a "free" market rather than "tax" ourselves for our own rational benefit ... you say there is nothing wrong here because this is the way the "free" market is supposed to work?
And I'm not supposed be laughing until I start crying?
From my notes about Milton Friedman and the so-called "free" market:
Milton Friedman, the guru of profoundly influential monetarist and laissez-faire ideas of the past few decades has pulled the plug on free markets ... maybe without realizing it.
From NPQ, the New Perspectives Quarterly:
Free Markets and the End of History
Friedman | ... "Free markets" is a very general term. There are all sorts of problems that will emerge. Free markets work best when the transaction between two individuals affects only those individuals. But that isn't the fact. The fact is that, most often, a transaction between you and me affects a third party. That is the source of all problems for government. That is the source of all pollution problems, of the inequality problem. There are some good economists like Gary Becker and Bob Lucas who are working on these issues. This reality ensures that the end of history will never come.
Intrepretation: Because transactions using the medium of money ALWAYS affect a third party, there is no such thing as a "free" or "unfettered" market in terms of the customary definition of the economic term. The reason for this is the clear fact that all costs incurred in the production and distribution of goods and services are not paid for out of the monetary selling price of the goods and services ... only the reimbursement of "ownership" costs ... so what is "free" about free markets is their being free of the costs they incur to others than the legally defined owners of the goods and services for sale--sellers and buyers.
Read that again: Because transactions using the medium of money ALWAYS affect a third party, there is no such thing as a "free" or "unfettered" market in terms of the customary definition of the economic term.
Need I add, "Duh!"?
Y'know, if something is too complicated for us common folks to understand ... when it affects our daily lives ... then we probably should figure something else out ... because the brilliant idiots are gonna screw things up trying to get more than their fair share of the real wealth ... which as the Good Book laid out: greed ... aka the love of money ... is the root of all evil.
All us working folks are asking is to give us the opportunity to go to work and create real wealth, and then be paid our fair share of what we have helped create. That's pretty darn simple. You'd think these geniuses could figure that out. Or ... could have figured out how not to screw it up.
Got a lot of "Duhs!" in this piece.*wink*
No comments:
Post a Comment