-Caveat Lector-

from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.8/pageone.html
<A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.8/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times
- Volume 3 Issue 8</A>
The Laissez Faire City Times
February 22, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 8
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
-----
The Global New Deal

by Sheldon Richman


When communism collapsed a few years ago, people thought the last grand
ideological debate over political economy had finally ended. Supposedly,
we were all capitalists now.

But this is clearly not the case. The world's political leaders show no
signs of a commitment to capitalism, if by that term we mean truly free
markets and individual liberty. On the contrary, President Clinton and
his colleagues are embarked on a course of global economic intervention
such as has never before been attempted.

The economic woes in Asia and Latin America are the pretext for this
power grab. But make no mistake about it: the control of our economic
activities contemplated by the bureaucrats has long been on the
political agenda. These folks have never been comfortable with free
markets and have yearned for the elusive "third way" between capitalism
and full socialism. The current global downturn gives them the
opportunity to realize their long-held ambition -- egged on by the usual
gang of anticapitalist intellectuals who absurdly blame today's economic
problems on "market worship." (Such as recent newspaper blather from
Robert Kuttner and William Greider.)

Let's take a moment to consider this concept, "the third way." It is not
widely recalled that the third way had another name in the 1920s and
1930s: fascism. Its exemplar was Benito Mussolini's Italy. Before this
word became merely an all-purpose insult, it functioned as a label for
what was seen as a legitimate middle course between revolutionary
Marxian socialism, which promised violent upheaval of the established
social order, and laissez-faire capitalism, which was believed to be
intrinsically unstable and biased against labor. The Marxists and their
sympathizers portrayed the liberal defenders of private property, such
as Ludwig von Mises, as fascists, but that was laughable. The fascists
had their roots in a variation of socialism known in Bismarck's Germany
as state socialism. This conservative variation of collectivism
maintained a fa�ade of private property in the means of production.

But it was just that, a fa�ade. In many respects, government set the
terms of use of that property so that it would serve the state's rather
than the individual's purposes. That principle underlay the program of
Mussolini, who, it should be born in mind, had been a Marxian socialist
before World War I. State socialism, or fascism, was long in the air
when an obscure Austrian artist formed a small political party in
Germany and devised a program to govern that outcast nation.
Unsurprisingly, Adolf Hitler called his program National Socialism, of
which the word "Nazi" is a shortened form.

Hitler set forth his position on private property clearly in 1931:

What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic
program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want
everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to
the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the
individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property
owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not
to use his property against the interests of others among his own
people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain
its right to control the owners of property.

Does this not describe the economic position of Bill Clinton and
virtually any other political leader worldwide you can name? They may
not put it in quite such terms. But it is exactly on point. They act as
though the owners of property are appointed by the state and serve at
its pleasure. Is Bill Clinton not acting as though Bill Gates was
appointed by the state to run Microsoft?

Restrictions on Capital Movements

If you want to see this Hitlerian doctrine in action, observe: In early
October 1998, President Clinton led 20 other countries in endorsing new
restrictions on the international movement of capital. This is a typical
case of blaming the thermometer for the fever. The premise of the new
restrictions is that the sudden withdrawal of capital from a particular
country's stock or bond market wreaks economic havoc in that country.
But this reasoning reverses cause and effect. Capital flees a country to
avoid real or impending havoc, which occurs when government pursues
irrational economic policies, such as monetary inflation, credit
expansion, confiscation, regulation, and subsidy. The policies, not the
capital exodus, are to blame. Why would investors take money out of a
country that had a sound economy?

A free worldwide capital market is a vital check on a government�s
ability to enact bad policies. The agreement to restrict capital
movements is designed precisely to thwart that check. It's an outrageous
cartel arrangement whereby governments try to prevent or limit policy
competition among themselves. Until now, if a government enacted
measures that violated economic freedom and stifled growth, investors
could, as a last resort, take their money elsewhere. That might at least
moderate the intensity of a government's intervention. Tomorrow that
won't be the case. Capital will be locked in place. This step toward the
worldwide centralization of government power must not be taken lightly.

Policymakers never seem to learn. If an investor cannot take his money
out of a country, that will certainly influence his decision to put it
in. To the policymakers, the producer is no different from a cow that
they think will give milk day in and day out no matter how they treat
it.

A day after the cartel agreement was announced, President Clinton went
further and called for worldwide economic regulations similar to those
imposed during the New Deal of the 1930s. He said that such a global
regime is necessary to "temper the volatile swings of the international
marketplace." It is hard to think of a more ridiculous proposal.

First, volatility is not intrinsic to the marketplace. Like the Great
Depression itself, big fluctuations result from government mismanagement
of money and credit. Let it not be forgotten that the Great Depression
occurred 16 years after the Federal Reserve was set up. (I'm sure a
majority of people think that the Fed was created to prevent a repeat of
the Great Depression.) Thus, central banks are the problem, and the
solution is a full free market in money, including competitive banking
and private currency.

Second, the original New Deal did not rescue America from depression.
Five years after Franklin Roosevelt became president, the economy was
nearly as bad off as it was under Herbert Hoover. As economic historian
Robert Higgs has documented, the economy did not recover until after
World War II. The New Deal, of course, was America's first formal
experiment with the third way. Roosevelt's Brain Trust had watched
Mussolini's Italy closely. And Il Duce admired Roosevelt's handiwork. To
take one example, the National Recovery Administration compelled each
industry to band together to establish formal codes to govern its
activities, including labor relations. The rare maverick businessman,
such as Sewell Avery (the head of Montgomery Ward) or Henry Ford, was
taught a lesson. (The NRA was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, but
successive piecemeal measures accomplished much the same thing.)

Strangely, in his speech calling for a global New Deal, President
Clinton warned against international capital controls -- the very thing
he had endorsed the day before. Was something interfering with his
concentration? Capital controls and a new New Deal are terrible ideas:
pure economic fascism. In light of the real causes of inflation and
depression, what we need is the repeal of central banking everywhere,
deregulation of capital, and full respect for property rights, without
which no human rights are possible.

The world today suffers not from too much capitalism, but from far too
little.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in
Fairfax, Va., and editor of The Freeman magazine.

-30-

from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol. 3, No. 8, Feb. 22, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by
Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc.
Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer
The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is
published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of
Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its
founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city
of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news
publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For
information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to