|
Visions of the Future by Bob Wallace When
I was in college, I took four economics courses: Principles of Macro,
Principles of Micro, and Intermediate Macro and Intermediate Micro.
Half of the material -- the free market half -- made sense.
The other half, being Keynesian/Marxist nonsense, should have been
junked 60 years ago. The
gobbledygook half consisted of equations such as Y = C+I+G, one line that
is supposed to run the entire The
visions of the future of these economists are the delusions of
semi-autistic, second-rate mathematicians who think the world can be run
by a few people using simple algebraic equations and graphs.
That's not much of a vision; actually it's a retrograde one.
I've lost my faith -- if I ever had any -- in intellectuals.
To be fair, I should say, "court intellectuals."
A true intellectual is one who does
not support the State. One
of the few sensible things they told the classes was that what a person
makes is based on how productive he is.
They left it at that. They
didn't expand on it and explain it means using
machines. The more a
person can produce with machines, the more money he makes.
A farmer is going to be much more productive with a tractor than a
using a stick as a hoe, and therefore make much more money.
Obviously, technology is our friend. There
is even a law that explains how machines increase our wages: Cooper's Law,
which states, "All machines are amplifiers."
They amplify abilities we already have. Yet,
ultimately, machines are not what increases our wages.
It's our brains, which we use to manipulate our hands to build
those machines. Brains --
intelligence -- is what is behind our ability to build machines.
None of this was mentioned in any
class I took in college. There
are other things which were never mentioned, such as the facts that in
addition to brains, other things are necessary.
A belief -- faith -- in the free market and liberty, even if the
person doesn't understand how the free market works.
But they can see the results of its wonders. It
was never mentioned the government can only harm the economy.
Indeed, the exact opposite was taught, that the economy can't
function properly unless the government is constantly interfering in it.
I am reminded of what Chief Wiggum said in The
Simpsons: "I didn't say the government couldn't harm you. I said
it couldn't help you." It's
an eternal truth they ignored because they didn't believe in it. We
weren't taught that technology is ultimately our friend, that whatever bad
technology creates (such as pollution) it can also find a way to clean it
up. Instead, in some classes
we were told technology and humans damage the earth, as if we were a bunch
of pre-Christian animists who believed spirits dwelled in various places,
and unless we made the proper obeyances and sacrifices they would do Bad
Things to us. Isn't that
ultimately what the belief in earth as Gaia is about -- that if we aren't
nice to it and sacrifice people to it, it'll croak us with global warming?
(Thirty years ago it was global cooling being howled about.) We
were never told about the importance of creativity, curiosity and
imagination in invention. Those
three things, along with intelligence and freedom, are what humans use to
advance themselves and society along with them.
Instead it was suggested to us that humans are an overpopulated
blight on the planet. There
was a time not so long ago when people were impressed by the free market
and the various widgets it was constantly creating to improve people's
lives. Now we've got George
Bush, supposedly a conservative, telling us to "conserve" (which
is what I expect from a liberal) instead of saying, "Hey, you know,
the entire universe is energy. We've
just got to liberate the free market, and people's intelligence,
creativity, imagination and curiosity to realize a way to suck what we
need straight out of the ol' space-time continuum."
It's a failure of nerve, and of brains, and of imagination.
It's a blinkered -- or maybe blind -- view of the future. I
have a different, and more optimistic view.
It's one in which the government isn't one-third of the economy and
sucking up half of people's incomes. It's
a world without public schools crushing kids' spirits.
It's a free world. And
in that world inventions come whizzing at us like crazy.
And without the government as a parasite, wages skyrocket. Most
people don't know it, but the Dark Ages weren't so dark.
Read Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine sometime.
For all the book's flaws, it gives a fascinating insight into an
era that was a cornucopia of inventions.
And why was that time so fertile?
Because of freedom. Where
would we be if freedom had been the natural condition of mankind instead
of the exception? Five
thousand years ahead of where we are now?
All diseases eradicated? Who
knows? Why
weren't these inventions pouring out of the rest of the world?
Out of the much older cultures of Maybe
it was all that science fiction I read as a teenager that gave me a more
optimistic view of the future, in fact an unlimited future.
The writer Norman Spinrad said it is the only visionary and
transformational literature. He
may be right. "What's now
proved was once only imagined," wrote William Blake.
"Everything that can be imagined is an image of the
truth." Look
at Jules Verne. There was a
Frenchman who essentially predicted every major invention of the 20th
Century. Now that was a
visionary man. These days, Ninety-nine
percent of the science fiction in the world comes from the "I
get tired of the naysayers and the environmental extremists," says
writer James P. Hogan, author of Bug Park.
"We have the ability, right now, to feed, educate, and take
care of every human being in the world.
We have the knowledge and ability to solve all the material
problems that homo sapiens faces
on Earth. The imagined crises
with energy and so forth that we hear all about are needless political
creations, not something imposed on us by reality." Now
that is an inspiring vision of
the future, based on good ideas. And
as Richard Weaver wrote in a book of the same name, Ideas Have
Consequences. The ideas of
Hogan and people like him are far better than the moaning and groaning of
the naysayer Paul Ehrlich, who hasn't been right once
in 40 years and even sterilized himself because of his belief in
"overpopulation." I
can only add: good riddance. The
next one who needs to go is Peter Singer, who sings the praises of killing
infants and old people, and sex with monkeys. Right
now we have enough free market in the discuss this column in the forum Bob Wallace has a degree in Journalism, is a former reporter and editor, and has been published at LewRockwell.com, Sierra Times, and The Libertarian Enterprise. |