Thus over the years it has come to pass that so many of the things we buy, from home electronics (VCRs, TVs, stereos, computers, cell phones), to clothes, cars, furniture, appliances -- even food -- are made in foreign countries, not in America.

Since the primary source of good jobs is providing the products (and services) other people need and want, if most of the people in a given country (such as America) decide to buy foreign goods because they are cheaper, then eventually few good jobs will exist in that country.

Clearly, this is the drastic situation we find ourselves in.

By the early '90s the monthly trade deficit of the United States had reached a horrendous TEN BILLION dollars a MONTH. (Yes, BILLION, not million.) Even worse, through the '90s, as the media and government were telling us how great the economy was, and that the "old rules" no longer applied in the (allegedly) new "hi-tech-driven" economy, the monthly trade deficit gradually increased to THIRTY BILLION dollars a month!

By this point the foundation of the economy was so weak that it only took a small blow to knock it down And yet people still haven't learned: Since September 11th, 2001, the monthly trade deficit has still continued to increase -- and recently reached FORTY BILLION dollars! And it's still growing! Which is why those who think the economy is eventually going to simply fix itself (or that the war will boost it back to normal) are seriously mistaken. Fundamental change is required.

Thus one of the main things that needs to be done to fix the economy is that people need to start paying attention to every purchasing decision they make, and support their country (and state and community) wherever possible. Even -- and this is vital -- if that means buying fewer things, and paying more for each.

Admittedly this goes counter to what the establishment has for decades been telling us to do, which is buy the cheapest product available regardless of where it's made, in the name of supporting "free trade" and "the global economy." But the establishment cares primarily about the well-being of the establishment, not the average American.

And the establishment's well-being is insured by a weak economy where people demand the government have all sorts of powers in exchange for the promise of "taking care of" the people. And the more powerful the government is, the more self-important and powerful those who have the closest access to the government (the broadcast media) feel -- and are.

Communism is the ultimate example of this approach. The government promises (though rarely delivers) to take care of everyone, in exchange for having virtually total -- totalitarian -- control over their lives. (Speaking of which, it's extra ironic that so many of the products that we, in a relatively free country, buy are purchased from very authoritarian, misogynistic countries, such as communist China.)

As for those who believe that buying foreign products is okay, because they (foreigners) will then use those dollars to buy other American products (that we are better at making): Yes, that is one of the arguments the establishment has used for years to re-assure people that there is nothing wrong with their desire to buy cheaper foreign products rather than support their own country.

And it might be true except for one extremely major point: Much of the money we give to foreigners to pay for products is NOT used to buy products (or services) from Americans. It is, rather, used to buy CONTROL OF Americans! That is, to purchase American companies, buildings, real-estate, and so forth. Which does little to create jobs for Americans. (And such jobs are vital to replace the jobs that were lost by the purchase of foreign goods).

Remember when Sony bought Rockefeller Center in New York? That was just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the downtown real estate in several major American cities is owned by the inhabitants of Asian or Arab countries (the latter thanks to all of that money we pay them for oil).

This is the "dirty little secret" the establishment almost never talks about. While every day they hype the transient rises and falls of the stock market, the far more important issue of the horrendous trade deficit is mentioned only once a month -- and is usually buried in the middle of the broadcast.

And they NEVER mention this means (essentially) that FORTY BILLION dollars of American assets are being purchased by foreigners each month! Or that FORTY BILLION dollars worth of jobs that could have existed in our country each month are instead being done overseas, leaving so many Americans unemployed or under-employed.

And one can't help but wonder if all this ownership of American assets gives foreigners control over our foreign policy and immigration policy as well. A very important question in light of how the terrorist attacks of September 11th were permitted primarily by the apparent laxity of the government agencies (INS, CIA, FBI) that are supposed to protect us from individual evil foreigners. (As well as by the various laws passed by congress, and "executive orders" issued by recent presidents, that made it easier for foreigners, even those from terrorist countries, to infiltrate our country with impunity.)

Further, one can help but wonder if we're getting involved in the middle east more because of oil (sixty percent of the oil Americans consume each year is imported, most of it from the middle east) rather than because any country there really has the ability to do us much damage militarily. (Or even via terrorism if the government would require the employees of the INS, CIA, and FBI do their jobs, instead of just advancing their careers and incomes).

To those who still insist on the alleged moral high-ground of so-called "free trade" and always buying the lowest price item, regardless of where it comes from: First, it isn't really free TRADE, since (for the most part) they aren't buying our products or services. Furthermore, I haven't said the government should prevent people from buying foreign products, which is all "free trade" means. I'm simply suggesting (strongly) that people voluntarily refrain from buying foreign products. Or, if they choose to do so, that they (not others) accept the consequences.

Any decision is honorable only if (amongst other things) one accepts the consequences of his or her actions -- including unemployment, and the unemployment of one's children and grandchildren. There is no honor in expecting the government (taxpayers) to pay the consequences. (As so many of the recently retired, after creating this mess, seem to expect. I call such people "the prescription drug coverage generation." A label with a far less flattering ring than "the greatest generation" that preceded it.)

To summarize, for the last several decades we have been exporting more and more of our jobs overseas, via the purchase of foreign products -- without requiring that foreigners purchase an equal amount of products and services from us. Instead of working for many of the products we want, we have paid for them by selling our soul. We have surrendered control (ownership) of many of our companies, buildings, and land -- in exchange for electronic gadgets and oil. (And increasingly just about everything else.)

The only way the economy is going to get substantially better is if people stop buying most foreign products (particularly from Asia and the middle east [oil]), and instead buy from American companies that employ American workers (not those that outsource to cheaper foreign labor).

And it would also help if we drastically reduced domestic taxes (such as income, sales, and property), which drive up the costs of products, replacing those taxes (to the extent necessary) with taxes on imports. Import taxes are are actually the fairest form of taxation, since so much tax money goes to defend America from foreign countries.

It is particularly ironic that we, a country that prides itself on the principles of freedom, have let control of our lives be bought by the inhabitants of some of the most oppressive and misogynistic countries on the face of the earth, including communist China and various Emir-ruled, "honor-killing" Arab countries. And why? Because they are willing to have their laborers provide us with cheap goods -- or because they happen to live on top of a massive oil supply.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.


The Second Reason (and Solution)

Okay, onto the other fundamental reason our economy has gotten so bad, and how to correct it.

The reason is simple to state: It's because ninety-nine percent of Americans (almost exactly) either vote for the republicans or the democrats -- or don't vote at all. And while each group is certain it's doing the right thing (and that it's the other groups that are to blame for all the problems our country has), the harsh reality is that all are equally to blame.

Think about it: If one party was really that much worse than the other, would both parties have remained roughly equally powerful for so many decades? No. Whichever party was really that much worse than the other would have gradually fallen away, perhaps to be replaced by some new party. But I believe the last time that happened was when some newfangled group called the Republican Party took the white house with some guy named Abraham Lincoln. That was nearly a hundred and fifty years ago!

Not that many of the bad things people say about democrats aren't true. It's just that many of the bad things people say about republicans are also true. Fundamentally both establishment parties, despite what they may say, want a government that is huge and powerful. (Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.) It's just that they each cater to different "special interests".

Traditionally (although the distinctions are blurring) the republicans want the government to have the power to subsidize big corporations, have a huge military (far beyond what is needed for defense) in order to be "the world's policeman" (regardless of how that increases the danger of terrorism against American civilians), and be able to apprehend and imprison people for years (decades even) because they broke a law -- regardless of whether any actual crime was committed.

(A real crime requires a victim. Imprisoning people "for their own good" is what is done in totalitarian countries. It shouldn't be done in America -- and wasn't during the first hundred and forty years of our country's existence.)

And while the democrats traditionally are more "live and let live", they want the government to have the power to take money from whomever they want and give it to whomever they want. And increasingly they are also becoming extremely "PC"; that is, forcing everyone (using the power of government) to have the same attitudes and priorities they do.

So most Americans vote for one of the two establishment parties -- the one they feel most closely matches their particular special interests. (We all have them.) But, overall, neither party is fundamentally (ethically or morally) significantly better than the other.

And they will always roughly split the vote 50-50. (Unless enough people read this essay!) It's been like that for decades -- and not just by chance. It has to be that way for both parties to survive, and they know it. If either party were to gain massive popularity over the other, they would no longer be able to blame the other party for how huge the government has gotten and all the problems the country has!

Thus they maintain a delicate balance, making sure that if one party starts to gain too much popularity their policies are changed to restore the balance. A good example of this was the last presidential election, where the vote was so close we didn't have an official winner until long after the election. Yet most people continue to insist that the party they vote for is so much better than the other.

Yet not voting at all, as many people choose (some even annoyingly self-righteously), is not the answer either. These people may think they are "sending a message" by not voting, but in fact they are the biggest lackeys of all, doing exactly what the establishment wants: opting out of the system, giving the core supporters of the establishment that much more power.

So what's the solution? Simple (in theory at least): Vote for independent candidates who actually understand -- and believe in -- the concepts this country was founded on.

Alas, the reality is the establishment parties have made it very difficult for independents to get on the ballot. It takes thousands of signatures from registered voters who live in the area being represented. Obtained in a short two month or so window, with all sorts of rules designed to trip you up and make sure your name isn't on the ballot. This is why there are so few independent candidates; the government makes it far more difficult for them to get on the ballot than it does the establishment parties.

Why is voting for independents so important? Because so many of the problems this country now has -- economic and otherwise -- are due to how far we have fallen (during the time the republicans and democrats have been in power) from the principles of freedom this country was founded on. (Including the imposition of massive domestic income, sales, and property taxes, while making sure there is very little taxation on the purchase of foreign gadgets and oil so people won't care so much about the high domestic taxes.) And things will continue to get worse -- far worse -- if they are permitted to remain in power.

If one actually pays attention to what the government does it is pretty easy to see this for oneself. Alas, few people in recent decades have wanted to bother. They simply vote republican or democrat (or don't vote at all), like they always have and always will, then "tune out" what the government is up to until the next election. So one of the most fundamental things people need to do is to actually start paying attention to what government officials, at all levels (local, state, federal), are doing, rather than trusting them because they belong to whatever party you voted for.

Yes, this is a sacrifice (of a bit of one's time and energy). But the price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance. And compared to the horrible sacrifices the founders of this country made (including in some cases being killed, or their children being killed), it really isn't too much to ask.

The United States is the only country in the history of the world to be founded on the principle that the government should only have limited powers, that those powers are granted it by its citizens, and spelled out in a Constitution. All other countries operate on the principle that the government can pretty much do whatever it wants, and considers (like a king) its people to be "subjects" (not citizens) who should be grateful for whatever rights the government grants them.

This is true not only of communist countries like China and the Soviet Union, but (to a lesser but still very significant degree) even the countries of Europe (who to this day still have kings and queens, though they have lost most of their powers).

It was in 1913 when things really started to change for the worse in our country. Two radical changes were made. The government took over direct control of the economy (money supply) by the creation of the (so-called) Federal Reserve System. Even worse, they amended the Constitution to allow the imposition (for the first time in the history of our country) of a personal income tax.

Those two things gave the government everything it needed to become the bloated, corrupt bureaucracy it is today: A huge source of funding (the ever-increasing income tax), and the ability to manipulate (for political purposes) the economy (through control of the money supply and interest rates).

And now the size of the federal budget has grown to over TWO TRILLION dollars! That's TWO THOUSAND BILLION dollars! (And this does NOT include special "off-budget" items like wars in the middle east!) Government, like any entity, primarily does what's best for it (government), not what's best for the country as a whole. Thus we have seen tremendous growth in the size, budget, and power of government in recent years -- as the quality of life of the average American citizen has declined.

And consider this: When the government decided it wanted to impose a personal income tax, they had to change the Constitution to do so, for having a personal income tax so violated the principals our country was founded on that it was (properly) considered unconstitutional. So what did the establishment government do? Simply change the Constitution to permit it!

Whereas the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) emphasized the rights people have (which the founders thought were implicit in the Constitution but later decided needed to be spelled out explicitly), the sixteenth amendment (permitting the government to take a portion of each person's personal income) was part of a trend -- that continues to this day -- in giving the government MORE power over people.

Our government was founded on the notion that the government has no more moral rights that does a person. For instance, if it's not okay for a person to steal, then it isn't okay for the government to either. If it isn't okay for a person to kidnap and imprison a person just because they are smoking (in their home) one kind of plant leaf instead of another (tobacco), then it isn't okay for the government to either.

However, since it is moral for a person (or group of people) (imagine they live on a tropical desert island or something with no formal government) to apprehend and imprison a murderer, the imprisoning of murderers is a proper intrinsic function of government.

Thus ideally we should have a relatively small government that only has powers that are equivalent to the moral powers people would have in the absence of a formal government. And the only taxation should be to support those intrinsic government functions -- which are police, the court system, and a limited national defense. It does NOT include being the world's policeman (or welfare daddy), or throwing people in jail "for their own good" because they broke some arbitrary government law.

Of course, we can't change everything overnight, but we should be heading in that direction, instead of -- as we have since 1913 -- heading away from it toward a more authoritarian government like the rest of the countries of the world still have.

When (before 1913) our country closely adhered to these ideal principals upon which it was founded, there was far less need for tax money, including no need for a personal income tax. And if we return to that ideal, we can eliminate not only the personal income tax, but most other taxes as well.

In fact, as soon as possible (in order to help our ailing economy) we should eliminate all taxes (income, sales, property, etc.) except one: taxes on imports!

First, this is the fairest tax, since so much of our tax money goes to defend us from foreign countries. (Some of the same ones we buy so many products from!) Second, it will make the cost of products we manufacture cheaper for our fellow Americans to buy, since so much of the cost of the products we buy these days is a result of all the taxes the companies making the products have to pay to our government.

So how did all of this corruption of our government happen? Because the very people that were best equipped intellectually to see what was happening and put a stop to it -- the "intelligent" (academically speaking) amongst us -- were (and are) often the ones who are quickest to want to profit off of government oppression (rather than fight it)!

For whatever reasons (I'll discuss my theories in a future essay), many (perhaps most) (academically) intelligent people don't have any moral qualms over making money off of government oppression. And thus as the world becomes ever more filled with the gadgets (and desk-jobs) created by "intelligent" people, it also tends to becomes increasingly more evil.

It's far easier to sit at a desk doing paperwork for a lot of money (paid for directly or indirectly by an oppressive government) than it is to do real work, like in a factory or on a farm, for honest pay (or study and apprentice for years to be, say, a medical doctor).

Every time the government takes money from one person (or group of people) and gives it to another, somebody "makes money" from that -- and the government gets a cut. Thus now we have the specter of the government stealing millions of dollars from taxpayers and giving it to other people to build, of all things, a new football stadium! And most people are so brainwashed that they don't even bat an eye!

Nor do many bat an eye when the government insists that billions of (taxpayer) dollars need to be spent on a new airport, or major expansion of an existing airport, at a time when airline travel is declining and major airlines are laying off thousands of workers!

But these direct re-distributions of money by the government aren't the worst form of corruption, for they are fairly obvious. Worse are the more subtle forms of oppression the government uses to transfer wealth from some people to others (while taking a cut, or getting campaign contributions, in return). They include government mandates, and laws that permit certain government-annointed people to throw their lower-priced competition in jail. Some brief examples:

In addition to all of the direct government (taxpayer) subsidies that the (allegedly oh so wonderful) high-tech industry has received over the years (to the point where a former vice president of our country claimed to have practically invented the internet), which to a large extent caused the artificial hi-tech boom of the late nineties (and the bust when reality caught up with the hype), there are indirect subsidies in the form of mandates.

For example, the government mandate that broadcast television (whether most people like it or not) has to switch over to "high definition" digital by 2006. Most programming on TV does not even live up to the full potential of the current analog (NTSC) system! And in any case most people do not really want to spend the extra money required for the slight (with most real-world programming) improvement.

So why is the government so insistent that everyone be forced to switch to HDTV? Because the high-tech lobby has paid large campaign contributions to a great many congressman! The high-tech industry will make a ton of money off of all the HDTV broadcast equipment and home TV sets that people will buy. And they (alas) have no moral qualms that their profits are coming by way of an immoral government mandate, not the free will of the people.

There are plenty of other examples of the massive corruption of the high-tech industry that are beyond the scope of this essay. One particularly egregious example is the patent system, where the government is permitting corporations to patent all sort of things it shouldn't, artificially driving up their profits -- and costs for the rest of us. For example, corporations are being permitted to patent human genes (!), rather than specific disease testing methods, so that other companies can't develop lower-cost tests!

Of course, the classic example of those who make an artificially high amount of money off of government oppression (besides of course those who work directly for the government in a strictly make-work job) are tax lawyers, and (most) lawyers in general.

Obviously, if there were no such thing as income taxes, there would be no tax lawyers. Similarly, most lawyers make their money off of arbitrary (and oppressive) government laws, not ones that are related to the intrinsic functions of government. Some examples are criminal defense lawyers who make most of their money from drug dealers, who only have so much money because the drugs are illegal (we'll discuss this more in a future essay), or corporate lawyers. For a corporation is an artificial government construct, a set of laws designed to help people who have corporations make money off of those who don't.

And every dollar one of these people who makes their living off of government oppression is paid reduces the average standard of living of everyone else, because they use those dollars to purchase real products and services (food, shelter, gas, etc.) even though they are contributing NOTHING in return.

Of course, some lawyers do provide valuable services. But the reason we have so many lawyers these days, and they are paid so much more than the average person, is because of all of these oppressive and arbitrary government laws. (And it's going to stay that way until people start voting for independent candidates rather than republicans and democrats.) And, furthermore, lawyers should no more be able to throw their lower-priced (but still competent for 90% of the tasks) competition in jail (via the so-called "unauthorized practice of law" statutes) than anyone else should. This is tantamount to organized crime.

Another great example, especially in the current economy, is loan refinancing. Again, not that there isn't some value to it. But the reason there are so many "jobs" for re-financers right now, and they make so much more money than those who have real jobs, is because of government oppression. Specifically, the massive government manipulation of the money supply and interest rates that began in 1913 and is now become so common that most people don't even blink an eye any more when they hear that on the news about the latest government manipulations of the money supply.

Loan re-financing only exists in the numbers and rate of pay it does because of government manipulation of the money supply and interest rates. In a stable environment there would be far fewer jobs, and they wouldn't pay as much. Those that have these jobs might therefore be glad for the artificial government intervention -- but only if they don't mind that they are, essentially, stealing from the rest of us.

For the money they "make" does not represent payment for providing goods and services in a free-market system, but simply taking advantage of government manipulation of the money supply. They argue that they save people money, which allows them to spend more money on other things. But no money is actually "saved" -- the people who work for the mortgage company that lost the mortgage to a lower rate loan lost precisely the amount of money that the re-financing consumer gained. (Minus the re-financer's cut of course!)

Thus no real wealth was created, as is, for example, created by a factory worker, farmer, and so forth. The loan re-financer simply makes a good living off of getting a cut of the government manipulations. Clearly they have little incentive to get the government out of the economy, so it's up to the rest of us to do so.

Alas, so many people have been brainwashed by the government and media that they don't even blink an eye anymore when the government changes the interest rate. They don't stop and think, "Hey wait a minute, why if this is a free country does the government have such control over the money supply and the economy?" Because, despite what we are repeatedly told by the government and the mass media, we no longer live in a free country. It's still freerer than all of the other major countries in the world, but it's a lot less free than it used to be.

Okay, I've covered a lot of ground, to say the least. Many of the points briefly raised here could easily fill a long essay. Over time I will be writing and posting more essays on these topics, related topics, and other even more fundamental philosophical issues (regarding not only economics and politics but other aspects of human behavior).

In the meantime, to summarize: The only way the economy is going to get better is if people stop buying most foreign products (particularly from Asia and the middle east [oil]), and instead buy from American companies that employ American workers (not those that outsource to cheaper foreign labor). Further, actively supporting and voting for independent candidates who value the principles this country was founded on (rather than republicans or democrats who want as big and oppressive of government as possible) will permit us to get rid of most domestic taxes, and eliminate the government-oppression-created make-work jobs that reduce the standard of living for the rest of us.

Thank you very much for reading this essay. If you found it of significant value and insight, please try to get as many of your friends, relatives, and acquaintances to read it. And if you have the means, send the author some money as proper remuneration for his efforts! (No amount is too small!) (E-mail me for my P.O. Box number.)

Also, if you are interested in helping me (or someone in your area) run for office (or running yourself) let me know so I can add you to the list of volunteers who are willing to help collect signatures to get candidates names on the ballet for an upcoming election.

Copyright (c) 2003 by Neal S. Reynolds

Licensed granted for distribution, without charge, to specific individuals you personally know (though where possible e-mailing the link to this web page is preferred).

License NOT granted for publication in any book, magazine, or newsletter, or posting on any other web site. (You may of course post a link to this web page on your web site.)

(Posted March 22, 2003)