New Wealth and the Candidates
Governments, from totalitarian to democratic, would be, should be in the business of solving some of the more obvious problems that all peoples face in their lives, such as threats from internal or foreign enemies, natural disasters, lack of educational and job opportunities, and inadequate transportation and energy systems and supplies.
Governments and government programs are expensive and governments create none of the huge amounts of wealth that their costly endeavors inevitably require. In fact governments have only three sources of wealth on which to draw. They may, and do more and more, tax their peoples, or at least those of their peoples who are wealthy enough to pay taxes, a diminishing number in the U.S. and Europe. They may sell their assets, such as a ore laden mountain or a postal service. And they may borrow money from the wealthy, from other nations as well as from individuals.
Now I've always found it strange that during an electoral campaign, such as the presidential campaign going on right now, the candidates talk incessantly about all they are going to do for the people, meaning new government expenditures. And they say little or nothing as to how their ideas and programs will be paid for. For example, I take the following from the candidates' own "issues" pages on the Web:
Barack Obama "will implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods."
Hillary Clinton "will strengthen the Middle Class, provide affordable and accessible health care, begin an Apollo Project-like program dedicated to achieving energy independence, will be a passionate advocate for providing greater educational opportunities to all children, will ensure that all those who sacrifice on behalf of our country receive the help and care they need, will restore America's standing in the world to promote our interests, ensure our security, and advance our values."
John McCain "will promote excellence, choice, and competition in American education, support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world, support a pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy to get our economy back on track, establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy."
New programs need new money. Isn't this obvious? And isn't it just as obvious that governments are not a source of new money, or new wealth? (Well, that's not quite true. They can always print it.) Wouldn't you think that the very first responsibility of government would be to foster those activities and those individuals in the country that are most apt to create wealth?
In our country where does the new wealth come from? Not so much as in the past from newly discovered natural resources, nor from the growth of factory assembly lines. Both are by and large things of the past.
Now new wealth comes from such fields as architecture, advertising, art, crafts, design, fashion, film, music, performing arts, publishing, research and development, software, toys and games, TV and video games. The people who work in these fields are adding to the country's wealth, and nowhere on the candidates' "issues" pages do we hear what the candidates are doing in their support.
Not that there is anything that the government should be doing. Rather, the candidates ought to be pledging not to interfere with wealth creation where it does occur, since they can't themselves do anything in respect to its creation. At the very least their "issues" pages ought to directly refer to their own dependence, for the enactment of their programs and the realizations of their promises, on the entrepreneurs, innovators, inventors and other such among us.
