Chart at end of essay: The
Natural History of Government Intervention
The
Destruction of the Free-Market Economy in
America
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
It is truly amazing how few Americans today have
any understanding of what constitutes a true
free-market economy. Politicians of both the left
and the right continually refer to our
"free-market" system as if there was such a thing.
Somehow, by some strange twist of logic and
semantics, liberals, while rejecting capitalism,
claim to be in favor of "free enterprise."
Conservatives fare no better. They rejected a true
free-market economy a long time ago and are now
where socialist thought and policies were sixty
years ago. The fact is we do not have a
"free-market" economy in the United States, nor do
we have "free enterprise," and we certainly don't
have anything approaching true "capitalism." What
we do have is something that can be called a
"mixed" economy on its way to becoming totally
socialistic.
Now let's get down to defining terms so we
clearly understand what we're talking about. Since
I am going to spend some of this discussion
explaining what a free-market economy is, let's get
the terms "socialism" and "mixed economy" out of
the way so we have something for comparison.
Socialism and
the Mixed Economy
Generally speaking, socialism is a
political-economic theory that advocates collective
or government ownership of the means of production
and distribution of goods and the practice of
government centralized economic planning. This is,
of course, an over simplification because contained
within the theory of socialism are some important
concepts regarding rights, freedom, values and so
on. Also, there are differences regarding some
particulars within various socialistic theories:
for instance, some socialists claim that all
personal property should be held in common while
others allow for a small measure of personal
ownership of personal goods. Some socialist
theories, such as National Socialism (Nazism) and
certain forms of fascism allow for some private
ownership of the means of production and
distribution but under heavy government regulation
and control.
A "mixed" economy is somewhat of a philosopher's
nightmare. It has no precise definition and
appears, more or less, to be a transitional phase
between a true free-market economy and a totally
socialist economy. It also involves some
centralized economic planning which varies
depending on the degree of transition. The rhetoric
of private property is still maintained but
government regulation and control of private
property becomes increasingly vigorous as the mixed
economic system moves toward socialism. The
rhetoric of individual rights is maintained but in
practice individual rights are continually
curtailed. An economy in the midst of the
transition is increasingly expanding a welfare
state where wealth is in the process of being
redistributed. From a theoretical standpoint, there
is no organized, consistent set of principles to
the concept of a "mixed" economy and, from a
practical standpoint, the economic system may be at
any point along a spectrum from a true free-market
to a total socialistic economy. To call such a
mixed system "free" at all is to insult the real
meaning of freedom or liberty. This should explain,
at least in part, why it's a philosophic
nightmare.
The United States has had a "mixed" economy now
for a hundred years or so, depending on where one
wants to precisely put the historical benchmark. I
personally put that benchmark at 1887, the passage
of the Interstate Commerce Act. While it is true
that the United States has never really had a
totally free market economy (or laissez-faire
capitalism, if you prefer), prior to 1887 the
economy was almost totally free of any government
regulation or control. It was as close to a
free-market system as any society has ever had.
Later in this discussion we'll take a look at the
1887 legislation and the disasters it has led to in
our economic and political life. But first, let's
take a look at the real free-market economy, the
only system that can truly be called a free
enterprise system.
A Free-Market
Economy
A true free-market or free enterprise system is
the economic part of a social system based on the
recognition of individual rights, including
personal rights and property rights, in which all
property is privately owned. In such a system, all
human relationships are voluntary and no individual
or group of individuals may initiate the use of
physical force against others. Individuals deal
with one another by discussion, persuasion, and
contractual agreement. This economic arrangement is
protected by a government whose major task is the
protection of individual rights. This government
exists only by the consent of the people within a
geographical area and the people are sovereign
while the government is not. The specific structure
of such a government is the political part of a
free social system and need not concern us at this
point.
Within a free-market economy there are no
government controls or regulations. If such
controls or regulations exist, how can an economy
be said to be free? A free market means that
individuals interact voluntarily and by individual
choice. Individuals are free to trade and the
economic value of an individual's work or products
is determined by the voluntary consent of those who
are willing to trade their work or products for
what another individual has to offer. This is
basically what is meant by the law of supply and
demand.
Within a free-market economy, every individual
must pay his own way. An individual can only claim
what he has earned and he can put those earnings to
whatever use he wants. He can use his earnings to
produce more, he can spend it on himself and his
family, he can give it away, or he can fritter it
away in any way he wants. The free-market economy
depends on the profit motive, which is an
individual's incentive to work in order to gain
something for himself. There is no free lunch.
Obviously this is just a brief discussion of
what constitutes a free-market economy. But it
gives you an idea of the basics and shows you the
contrast between a free-market economy and a
socialistic economy. Any free economic system that
becomes "mixed" will ultimately become a
socialistic economic system. Any socialistic
economic system will end in disaster. That's
because socialism is not only bad in practice; it
is also bad theory. Think for a moment. Name one
country in the entire world where socialism is
practiced that has a sound, growing economy and
which is not in some sort of terrible economic
trouble.
The only thing that can be said at this time
regarding the United States is that, because we
still have enough remnants of a "free" economy, we
have not yet experienced all the disasters which
are a result of a completely socialistic economy.
But time is getting short. The attempt, for
instance, on the part of the federal government to
take over health care and almost 17% of the
economy, shows the trend going on in the United
States. This is still being seriously considered
even though other countries with socialized
medicine, such as Canada and England, are having
disastrous results with their socialistic medical
programs.
The Beginning
of the Disaster
We can always disagree about the specific point
at which some historical event or social trend
actually begins. We seldom disagree, however, about
the event or trend itself. As I have said, fully
realizing that some could argue that the demise of
the free market in America began earlier, the
beginning of the downfall of free enterprise in
this country, as far as I am concerned, was the
passage of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887. I
would agree that certain ideas and proposals prior
to that date set the stage for the congressional
action of 1887. Ideas and proposals, however, are
not overt actions or public policies.
After the War between the States, the railroads
in this country experienced tremendous expansion.
On May 10, 1869, the famous "golden spike" was
driven into the ground at Promontory Point, Utah,
marking the place at which the Union Pacific and
Central Pacific railroads were finally joined in
transcontinental bliss. Not long afterward, there
were other transcontinental railroads and the
United States had railroads going everywhere and
covering the country from coast to coast.
Competition was fierce and, because railroads rates
were low, the railroad entrepreneurs complained
about cutthroat competition. Some companies went
into bankruptcy, others were taken over, some just
went out of business. This was, of course, the
working of a free economy.
The railroad barons did not like this situation
and attempted to improve their position by joining
together, fixing rates, and dividing the market.
These various agreements, however, never lasted as
one after the other would violate the agreement,
hoping to gain an advantage. Problems began to
arise when some customers of the railroads began to
complain about the discriminatory pricing taking
place; some shippers had to pay more than others
and they were unhappy.
One has to remember that the railroad business
at that time was the major economic enterprise in
the country, was highly visible, and intimately
connected with the financial interests of Wall
Street. The railroads were important to the farmers
in the Midwest who accused them of monopolistic
practices because of high freight rates. The
railroads were attacked by the Grange movement in
the 1870s, as well as by the Greenback party, the
Farmers' Alliance, and other groups. These
complainers began agitating for government control
of freight rates. The Populist Party even called
for government ownership of the railroads. The free
market would have solved these problems in time as
the principles of competition and supply and demand
kicked in and took hold. They were not, however,
given the chance.
It is important to keep in mind that many people
do not like competition, particularly when it hits
them in the pocketbook. There are many people who
do not like to operate in a free marketplace. And
some, notice I say some, railroads were like that.
As the public campaign against the railroad
industry mounted, some railroad barons realized
they could turn the whole situation to their
advantage. A few of these barons realized they
could use the federal government to enforce their
price fixing agreements and market sharing
agreements and protect them from state and local
governments. So some of these businessmen joined
with the "reform" movement and supported the
movement toward government regulation.
It is important to notice at this point that
these so-called businessmen, some of the unhappy
railroad barons, intellectually left the
free-market philosophy and joined the movement
toward a government regulated economy. These
entrepreneurs were no longer "capitalists," nor
were they supporters of "free" enterprise, because
now they were asking, even demanding, special
protection for their industry. It is also important
to notice that it was not the free market which
would provide them with special protection and
privileges, but the government. This special
"favor" would come about, not as a result of
capitalism or the free market, but as a result of
government legislation. The legislation was the
establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission
in 1887 and the attack against a free-market
economy or free enterprise was on the way.
Thomas Cooley, a railroad lawyer, was the first
commissioner of the ICC. Sound like yesterday's
news? Of course, if the railroad interests were
really serious they would have one of their own
appointed to head the controlling government body.
The railroads needed to be sure that their
interests were taken care of; in the meantime, the
"reformers" had gone on to other crusades. Not only
that, the commission immediately began to solve
some problems the reformers and railroad barons
were complaining about. It raised the rates for
shipping, making the customers unhappy, and began
to increase its control over the industry, thanks
to a cooperative Congress.
Then along came the invention of the internal
combustion engine, the automobile, and (heaven help
us!) trucks that could haul freight as well as, if
not better, than the railroad. The Interstate
Commerce Commission (controlled by railroad
interests) had kept railroad freight rates
artificially high and the trucking industry began
to grow tremendously because of the high cost of
railroad transportation. The trucking industry was
very competitive and, at the time, unregulated.
Actually, anyone with a yen to drive a truck and
enough money to buy one could go into business
instantly. A real example of the free market at
work!
But guess what? The railroads didn't like the
competition. As a result of much lobbying, the
trucking industry was brought under the control of
the Interstate Commerce Commission. Congress passed
the Motor Carrier Act in 1935 and gave the ICC
control over the truckers. This was, of course, not
to protect the consumers. It was to protect the
railroads. So much for the free-market economy.
The creation of the Interstate Commerce
Commission was the first stake driven into the
heart of the free-market economic system. That, you
recall, was in 1887. But more was to come. The
fight against capitalism and a free-market economy
was to be waged on other fronts as well. And this
monstrous change in the free market system is
haunting us today. As a matter of fact, it haunted
us not so long ago when a change was made in the
interest rates and the Mexican peso bailout was
executed by President Bill Clinton.
The Federal
Reserve System
Now we come to the second stake driven into the
heart of the American free-market economic system.
At the time it appeared as "innocent" and
"necessary" as the Interstate Commerce Act and
subsequent interferences with the economy have
been.
On December 23, 1913, Congress passed the
Federal Reserve Act, which established Federal
Reserve Banks, gave the government power to print
"notes" (currency), established a system for member
banks to exchange their gold deposits for
government "notes," and a long list of regulations
which gave the government virtual control over the
entire money system. That Act set up the central
banking system for the United States.
The Act created twelve regional Federal Reserve
banks supervised by a Federal Reserve Board,
currently chaired by Alan Greenspan. All national
banks must belong to the system. State banks may
belong if they meet certain requirements. Member
banks hold the bulk of the deposits of all
commercial banks in the country.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System is composed of seven members appointed to
staggered 14-year terms. These members are named by
the president of the United States, who also names
one of the governors as chairman. The main function
of the Federal Reserve System is monetary policy,
which it controls using three tools: reserve
requirements, the discount rate, and open market
operations.
From 1913 to the present, the United States was
in no way a free-market economy. The first stake
had been driven in 1887 with the passage of the
Interstate Commerce Act, which had permitted the
federal government to begin to interfere in the
national economy. Some semblance of a free-market
economy, however, remained. With the passage of the
Federal Reserve Act, the next and fatal stake was
driven and the free-market economy was a thing of
the past.
Although the Federal Reserve System is called
"Federal," it is privately owned. It has also never
received a meaningful audit from an independent,
outside source. The System makes its own policies
and is not subject to the President or to the
Congress or to the People.
The Federal Reserve System was originally set up
to protect and promote the interests of
international bankers and financiers. They
benefitted because the System is the overseer and
supplier of reserves, it gave their banks access to
public funds in the Treasury (that is, tax money
from the people), enhancing their capacity to lend
and collect interest. They also gained control over
the nation's money supply and interest rates. The
System is also authorized to create money and thus
inflate money whenever it wants to. In other words,
the Federal Reserve Act gave virtual control over
the economic life of this nation to the private
bankers and financiers who then profit enormously
and often at the public's expense.
The "justification" for establishing the Federal
Reserve System was the alleged "instability" of the
free-market economy. Every 20 years or so from 1840
to 1913, the country was hit by sharp downturns of
the economy that were known as "panics." These
downturns, however, are a normal part of any true
free economy. Ordinarily they don't last very long
and the natural laws of supply and demand and so
forth straighten things out rather rapidly. In
fact, prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve
System, in the period between 1840 and 1913, the
country experienced the most spectacular and
sustained economic growth in American history.
Contrary to what has been fed to the public by
the government and most economists, the American
economy has been much less stable since the
establishment of the Federal Reserve System.
Downturns have been far more severe in terms of
lost output and unemployment. In the 20 years
before 1913, only 1,748 banks failed. In the 20
years after the creation of the Federal Reserve
System in 1913, more than 15,500 banks failed. And,
of course, there was the Great Depression. The
Federal Reserve System did not prevent that.
There were other things that contributed to the
destruction of the free market economy such as
going off the gold standard, the implementing of a
personal income tax, the passage of antitrust
legislation, and the creation of the framework for
the welfare state and its redistribution of wealth
on principles diametrically opposed to the concept
of a free-market economy. The period from 1887 to
the present day is a dramatic illustration of the
lesson which we just don't seem to learn: you can't
have freedom and security at the same time. Every
time you demand some security from the government,
you must give up some freedom to the
government.
Consider what has been done to the free-market
economy in America in just a little over a hundred
years:
- The federal government entered the money
business, in competition with other minters and
warehousers.
- The federal government then outlawed all
competitors and claimed a monopoly on the money
system.
- The federal government established a Federal
Reserve System which gave it the power to hold
everyone's gold in its vaults and issue receipts
far in excess of the gold it had on
deposit.
- The federal government made it illegal for
people to get their own gold back and declared
paper money ("fiat" money) to be the legally
recognized money of our country.
This was probably the most protracted theft in
history. The federal government has virtually all
the gold and can print paper money at will. It is
in total control of the money system. The
free-market economy is essentially destroyed. The
American people lost their free market to the
international bankers and financiers and they lost
their sovereignty to the politicians and
bureaucrats in their employ. It is a sad state for
a country which began with such promise. The
Founding Fathers have undoubtedly turned over in
their graves.
|
The
Natural History of Government
Intervention
|
|
A Real or Fancied Evil is
Identified
|
|
|
There are Demands to do
Something About It
|
|
|
A Coalition is Formed of
Reformers and Interested
Parties
|
|
|
The Incompatible Objectives of
the Members of the Coalition are Glossed
Over
|
For instance, consumers may
want low prices while producers may want
high prices
|
|
The Coalition gets Congress to
Pass a Law
|
|
|
The Law Grants Power to
Government to do Something
|
|
|
Interested Parties Work to Make
Sure Power is Used for Their
Benefit
|
Reformers go on to new
causes
|
|
They Generally Succeed Which
Leads to New Problems
|
|
|
The Scope of Intervention is
Now Broadened to Meet New
Problems
|
Government bureaucrats will
arrange things so that even the original
special interests may not
benefit
|
|
In the End the Effects are
Precisely the Opposite of the Reformers
and do not Achieve the Objective of the
Special Interests
|
The activity is now so
firmly established and so many vested
interests are connected that repeal of the
law is inconceivable
|
|
New Government Legislation is
Called for to Deal with the Problems
Created by the Initial
Legislation
|
|
A New Cycle of Intervention
Begins
|
|
Based on a discussion in: Milton and Rose
Friedman, Free to Choose (New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1980), p. 201.
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|