One navigates the day’s news, a veritable miasma of human folly and tragedy, only to be confronted yet again by the siren song of economic illiteracy. Amongst tales of geopolitical strife, ancient monarchical squabbles, and heartbreaking loss, an old chestnut resurfaces: “Can Trump really pay $5,000 to every American adult?” The very framing of the question is a testament to the profound ignorance that plagues our public discourse, an ignorance that, I submit, is assiduously cultivated by those who seek to expand the state’s dominion.
Let us be unequivocal: no, “Trump” cannot pay $5,000 to every American adult. Nor can any other politician, party, or bureaucracy. Governments, despite their pretensions to omnipotence, are not productive entities. They do not *create* wealth; they merely *redistribute* it, always with a substantial frictional loss owing to their inherent inefficiency and predilection for cronyism. This $5,000, or any other sum, must first be extracted from the productive economy through taxation, borrowing (which is merely deferred taxation), or inflation (a hidden tax on savings and future purchasing power). To suggest otherwise is to engage in a fiscal fantasy that would make even the most ardent alchemist blush.
The notion that one can simply shower citizens with money from some ethereal, limitless fount is a dangerous one, not least because it fosters a dependency upon the state that undermines individual initiative and responsibility. It suggests a world where consequences for profligate spending simply vanish, where the laws of supply and demand are merely suggestions, easily overridden by political fiat. Such thinking is the intellectual bedrock of every failed socialist experiment, from Caracas to Pyongyang, and yet, like a persistent weed, it resurfaces whenever a politician seeks to buy votes with promises of unearned largesse.
Consider the Red Sea and Yemen’s Houthis. This geopolitical instability, a result of myriad complex factors, undoubtedly disrupts global trade and supply chains. And what is the state’s typical response? More military spending, more intervention, often funded by the same economic sleight-of-hand that promises free money at home. The costs of these adventures, like the costs of domestic giveaways, are ultimately borne by the productive sector, diverting capital from genuine wealth creation and hindering the very markets that could, if left unmolested, innovate solutions to many of the world’s problems.
The quest to identify Ground Zero remains, a poignant reminder of profound loss, certainly. But even here, the temptation to expand the state’s role, rather than trusting in the spontaneous order of human charity and private initiative, is often overwhelming. And when we turn to tragic events like the DR Congo school fire, our hearts ache. But the solution is not to empower a distant, often corrupt, central authority to “fix” things. It is to enable local communities, free from burdensome regulations and excessive taxation, to build and protect their own institutions.
My friends, the world is complex, often cruel. But the solutions, particularly in the economic sphere, are often elegantly simple: respect for private property, sound money, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. The moment we allow ourselves to believe in economic miracles conjured by politicians, we invite not prosperity, but penury. Let us not confuse the political ledger, which can be manipulated, with the economic ledger, which always, eventually, balances.
Signed,
Cornelius Bragg
Economics Editor, The Artificial Press