http://www.mises.ca/posts/blog/the-bill-clinton-myth/
However this is a misunderstanding of the difference between spending
by private individuals and political spending. Government is incapable
of being run like a business. Enterprise is based off the principle of
satisfying voluntary patrons with no guarantee of success. Even in a
hampered market economy where corporations receive special privileges
via the state, the consumer remains the kingmaker. On the other hand,
government receives all income through coercive measures. Profit and
loss accounting is of little concern when losses are borne by the
taxpayer and profits are immediately devoted to political projects.
Should the public Treasury run low, tax collectors can be sent forth to
shakedown the unpresuming citizens.
When it comes to rational economic calculation, public officials need
not worry about spending money effectively. To attribute increased
revenue being taxed away from the private economy with robust growth
misconstrues how wealth is created. Government doesn’t create wealth;
it merely transfers it between parties. Similarly, it only consumes
capital that has already been produced. Because society existed before
the state and because the state functions off of what it pilfers from
society, public expenditures do not add to net wealth. In order for one
tax dollar to be spent, it has to be first taken from the pocket of a
taxpayer. Whatever subjective desires could have been achieved by that
dollar become overridden to satisfy the whims of the political class.
The fact that the economy didn’t stagnate under higher taxes during
Clinton’s term in office doesn’t demonstrate that taxation has no
harmful effects. Economies aren’t closed experiments where one variable
can be introduced and the effects observed. There are far too many
factors at play. Concrete theories based off certain truths must be
applied in such a way to interpret date and wring sense out of it. Good
economic conditions weren’t a result of heightened taxes but instead
prevailed in spite of them. While the productivity gains from the newly
widespread use of personal computers and the internet had a positive
effect on growth, another factor often goes unmentioned. The later-half
of the 1990s may be looked back upon as golden years but much of the
gains experienced by the stock market were not representative of organic
growth. A significant amount of investment came not from natural
causes but from monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve.
Like the decade that preceded the Great Depression, productivity
gains which drove consumer prices downward masked the amount of monetary
stimulus being pumped into the economy. When the bubble collapsed,
Greenspan once again turned to the printing press to bail himself out.
Instead of causing a bubble in the tech sector, the burst of inflation
made its way into the housing sector. By the time the housing bubble
popped, Greenspan left the chairmanship of the Fed to great acclaim.
Milton Friedman writing in the Wall Street Journal
declared Greenspan had “set the standard” for Fed chairmen in
maintaining stable prices and growth. In actuality, he and his
colleagues of the Federal Open Market Committee were responsible for the continuation of the boom-bust cycle and current Great Recession.
Today, Clinton still takes credit for Greenspan’s manipulated boom.
His supporters on the left love nothing more than to point at his
presidency as vindication of the backwards theory that higher taxes
equal more growth. Clinton wasn’t a policy wonk; he was a politician who dipped into the Social Security trust fund to give an appearance of balancing the budget while the national debt still climbed higher.
Through all of his financial scandals, womanizing, aggressive foreign policy approaches, and possible cover ups,
it is actually fitting that Clinton is still looked to by the political
establishment as someone worthy of respect. He is representative of
F.A. Hayek’s timeless lesson: in government the worst rise to the top
and state power corrupts.
No comments:
Post a Comment