May 13, 2014
The Economics of Creative Destruction
Daniel J. Mitchell
5/13/2014 12:01:00 AM
When companies get in trouble, we’re the mean people who don’t want to give bailouts.
When workers are laid off, we’re the Scrooges who don’t want perpetual unemployment checks.
And when some workers aren’t earning much money, we’re the scoundrels who don’t want to boost the minimum wage.
Our “problem” is that we care about good results rather than good intentions. Motivated by the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat, we look at indirect effects and long-run consequences. And this is why we routinely reject statist proposals.
The challenge, of course, is educating others so that they understand that small government and free markets are the best way of providing more opportunity and better lives – particularly for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
This is why I was very happy to see this new video from Learn Liberty. It basically explains the process of “creative destruction” to show how progress and prosperity are undermined when politicians try to “protect jobs.”
I also like the video because it makes the point that our living standards are the result of how much we produce, not the number of jobs.
In other words, we don’t want people employed for the sake of being employed. We want them doing things that add value to the economy.
That’s one of the reasons why many government jobs are wasteful. People who could be creating wealth are instead imposing costs.
But let’s shift back to the topic of “creative destruction.” In my speeches, I’ll sometimes make the point that progress can be painful. Consider these examples:
The invention of the light bulb was very bad news for the candle making sector.
The invention of the automobile was a grim development for the horse and buggy industry.
The invention of the personal computer devastated typewriter companies.
In every case, these inventions made society much richer, but they also caused the destruction of thousands of jobs and bankrupted many firms. These were very real tragedies for certain people.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, we know that it was good that this “creative destruction” took place. We even know that the descendents of the candle makers, buggy builders, and typewriter producers are better off because our economy is so much more productive.
Just as the video explains that we’re much better off because 90 percent of the population no longer has to work on farms.
Yet we’re still faced with the paradox that supporters of capitalism are called heartless even though we’re the ones that support policies that create wealth and lift people from poverty.
P.S. On a separate topic, I criticized the World Bank in 2012 for putting together a “tax effort” scorecard that gave nations higher scores for heavier tax burdens.
Well, international bureaucracies must be in love with higher taxes (probably because they’re exempt from having to pay tax) and you won’t be surprised to learn that the International Monetary Fund has now published a similar report.
The nation that gets the highest score (i.e., the nation with the worst tax system) is Italy, with an average of almost 99 percent, though France (97 percent) is probably very envious and I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked for a recount.
The nation with the lowest “tax effort” is Guinea-Bissau, with a “failing” grade of about 32. I doubt this means they have a good tax system. I suspect it simply means nobody complies and the government doesn’t expend much “effort” on trying to collect.
Among developed nations, Singapore got the lowest score, with an average of 38. Which means, of course, that they have a very good tax system.
Though there were no grades for places such as Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Cayman Islands, so the report is not complete.
The United States, for what it’s worth, got a 70. So we’re not nearly as bad as countries such as France and Italy. But we’re much more onerous that Singapore.
We also have a higher “tax effort” than officially communist nations such as China and Vietnam. Gee, I guess that means we can be proud of the IRS, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment