|
$4,482,645,624.10
Recent Comments
Politicians use phrases like "economic empowerment" without defining the term or how this ideal will be accomplished. Do they intend using the coercive power of government to take from some and give to others, or do they mean non-interference with the market - the only impartial means to real "economic opportunity"? In 1850 Bastiat wrote The Law and clearly shows that when socialist policies that have political appeal are used coercively by the state, they lead to undesirable ends. He states: "Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice - under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility - that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve - slowly, no doubt, but certainly - God-s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity." He continues: "It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion - whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labour, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government - at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty (free markets)." Rather than offering the "Politics of Reason," politicians continue to serve up the "Politics of Passion" - making grandiose promises and pandering to views that continue to "keep us down." Passionate promises are evident in every speech. We are promised work for all, healthcare for all, prosperity for all, education reform for the benefit of all. We are promised public safety for all, that the national debt will be brought under control... and on and on. But these are promises left mostly unfulfilled. In the Bahamas we sometimes confuse a piece of the economic pie with income re-distribution. In other words using the power of government to give preferential treatment to one group over another. What difference does it make how rich the other guy is so long as he is not hurting others and we have the same opportunity to succeed if we put in the effort? "In a 1997 study Economics researcher Niclas Berggren, found that those countries which have a considerable amount of government control and intervention into the economy - that is, those countries which are not economically free - also happen to be countries in which there are wide differences in income distribution. This problem has certainly been a characteristic of many Latin American economies for a long time and it is for this reason that countries which have been liberalising, like Chile and Argentina, have a very much better distribution of income than those countries which have retained most of the powers of government, such as Venezuela and Columbia, for example". James Gwartney and Richard Stroup from their book Ten Key Elements of Economics determined that "There are four sources of income growth."
Finally, continued economic growth provides more opportunities for "Economic Empowerment." It means moving away from the mind-set of dependency on the state, and a commitment to hard work - and self-empowerment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
robert stewart - 26 March 2005 01:06- Economic empowerment.
- That was an excellent piece of work. Economic empowerment arises from the efforts of individual not from the dictates of politicians. Despite its flaws, that is why America has been a beacon for poor people all over the world, and why the Cuban Government has to use force to keep its people from fleeing from their empowerment policies - whose only result has been to keep the Cuban people in poverty.
Robert Stewart.
Add new comment: