Who is at fault? Who is to blame? How far away from ourselves can we point the finger? I hope this mentality sounds familiar to all readers. If the existence of this mentality has escaped your senses, I’m afraid you may be in need of some introspective thinking because you represent the cause of many of our problems. However, before confronting the concept of responsibility directly, let’s examine a phenomenon that will lead us in responsibility’s direction.
For a brief moment I would like to visit the idea of a tyranny in the United States. Can you imagine what the tyrant’s role might be? Who would make the decisions? Who would be to blame for any fall-outs or problems? Where would the bulk of our taxes go? If a problem arose, where would we turn to for solutions? Now, consider our current situation. Frankly, I don’t like to add up the similarities, as the number grows too large for comfort.
Any properly functioning organization that's stewardship covers a great deal of geographical distance, functions on a basis of decentralization. The concept of decentralization emphasizes the need for the placement of decision making authority towards the extremities of the organization. As stated in the introductory post of this blog, when I look at my paycheck I see myself giving a disproportionate, inappropriate amount of authority (i.e. money) to the “central” government. Can the citizens of this country honestly believe that an organization with it's base located 1,000 miles away (in some cases) from the state they live in is most capable of ensuring a healthy standard of living for them? How can we expect people that operate so far away from us to use our money in an efficient manner that benefits us?
Our federal government spends unfathomable amounts of money on programs that, due to our specific geographic, social and cultural needs, have no relevance to us. I submit that the federal government should disband programs that can be handled by the states just as, if not more, efficiently. The Preamble to our Constitution may be able to provide some guidance as to the role of our federal government.
This leads me to my next and final point of this post. With the elections so close we are all analyzing which characteristics to look for in a President. Let me give you a hint; if you’re looking for a perfect, or even a near-perfect man, you’re in for a disappointment. This may seem like common knowledge, but our behavior suggests otherwise.
When we place any substantial amount of responsibility or blame for the problems in the United States on one man, we’re giving that man too much credit. I can almost guarantee that in future textbooks, our current economic situation will most likely be blamed on the Bush Administration. The problem with this placement of blame is the implied notion that the president actually has a substantial effect on the economy. He doesn’t. If you really understand economics, you already know this, but for the sake of those that don’t, I’ll explain.
Economics is defined as the study of how scarce resources are allocated amongst a group of people. You see, the president has very little power to allocate said resources. This power would be more appropriately credited to the Fed and the owners of the scarce resources. To say that the president is to blame for a bad economy is to say that he owns and controls everything. Remember the whole “tyrant” allusion? Now, do I think that our president is a tyrant? Not in the slightest. I just think that if I were being blamed for so much, I should have control over everything I was being blamed for. Thus, when we place blame in places it doesn't belong, we're handing power over to parties that don't deserve it.
The fact of the matter is that we, as a people, need to start assuming more responsibility for solving our own problems. As we continue to blame the other party and hand our problems over to the government, the very same government will continue to grow. As it grows, more generalized laws and bills will be passed that don’t begin to solve all the region-specific problems in the country. Eventually, we’ll wake up one day to find that our right to solve our own problems has been taken away.
In the next few posts, I’ll elaborate more on this issue of responsibility. Look forward to a post that discusses what can be done to more efficiently and effectively help the poor. Look forward to an explanation of what the president’s role should be along with what makes a good one. Also look forward to reading about a better way to bring about the “change” that Obama is so vainly promising.
SO MUCH TO DISCUSS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Jared, interesting post. I would like to suggest for your musing the contribution of the Presidents effect on the economy through shadow leadership. This greys the line between control and complimentary roles between the legislative, judicial, and appointed offices in the Fed.
Good point daniel. I will admit that the president does have a certain influence in our economy. Some of the things he says can effect the expectations of the public, but the effects of expectations are usually short lived if there is no truth to it.
For instance, the president could come out and say that a foreign country has launched a nuclear bomb headed for Los Angeles. This would cause mass hysteria in Los Angeles (airport rushing, traffic jams, etc...), but unless it were true it would only have a temporary effect on the economy. It wouldn't leave much of a dent. In other words, he can announce problems, but he has little power to cause or correct real economic problems.
He can also use persuasion to influence the economy, but -- as we have seen in recent days with congress's rejection of the Bailout Plan -- he can't do much unless other people of influence agree with him.
By the way, I think that this is the first time I've been happy with congress in a long time. This fits right into my idea of responsibility. If taxpayers are forced to pay for a few big mistakes of CEO's, our free market society is undermined and we step closer to a socialist government.
Laissez-Faire economic polices are certainly the most effective way of curbing government inefficiency, but every policy has it's downfalls.
Remember that sometimes effective regulation can actually SAVE businesses, as it could have a few years ago when businesses like Lehman Brothers could have been stopped from lending so riskily, and therefore being saved from bankruptcy.
Here's what I think: occasionally government can be a GOOD thing, whether it be controlled at the federal level, or by the state.
The real job we have today is eliminating bureaucracy that doesn't work, and enhancing what has, essentially raising the "value" of how government gets things done.
I'm sick of dumb programs like "Americorps" when really, we could spend that money on the police themselves. I'm sick of being a citizen of a country that spends billions on worthless "rehabilitation" programs for violent criminals, instead of new prisons/lethal injection chambers.
We can cut government where it doesn't need to be, and channel our ingenuity to where it does - but we really need to do something to make that a reality.
I think you make some really good points. Thanks for a thought-provoking read.:)
Jesse,
I agree with you when you say that some regulation can be a good thing. I am, by no means, a complete libertarian. I think you were right on when you said that "The real job we have today is eliminating bureaucracy that doesn't work, and enhancing what has, essentially raising the 'value' of how government gets things done."
The base of my argument in THIS post is that what "works" best -- as far as government in our everyday lives goes -- is established at the state level.
Granted, there are some things that the Feds should handle (e.g. military, federal reserve, etc), but most of the government programs that now exist could be better handled by the states.
Post a Comment