Reprinted from the Daily Bell
Creating and sustaining a nation of zombies is expensive.
Large sections of the US population have been turned into zombies. Retirees. Medicare dependents. Food stamp recipients. Disabled people. They are not necessarily bad people. They are not necessarily dishonest or lazy. But rather than add to wealth, they consume it. And when you have too many of them, your society consumes more wealth than it produces and you are on the road to The Downside.
But the feds are not only creating individual zombies, they are also creating corporate zombies. An obvious example: “green” energy. Without subsidies, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct giveaways, the industry as we know it would not exist. Nor would the ethanol industry in the Midwest. Nor the security industry in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.
The financial industry, too, as we know it, would not exist either. Much of it would have been swept away in the financial storm of 2008-09. That story is well-known, but not well understood. Most people believe the authorities acted heroically, saving the nation from a depression. But what the authorities really did was to take the public’s money and give it to cronies on Wall Street in order to prevent them from suffering the losses they deserved. The government transferred nearly $2 trillion in various forms from the public purse to the pockets of the financial industry. With that kind of backing, most of the old investment firms survived. The new ones that might have replaced them never saw the light of day.
Industries need to be sustained by the government when they cannot sustain themselves. This is practically the definition of “malinvestment” — putting capital and energy into investments that don’t pay off. When an industry is only profitable with government backing it means that the industry uses resources — labor, energy, raw materials — and turns them into finished products that are worth less than the inputs required to make them. The more of these zombie industries the government supports, the poorer the society becomes.
“Rentier” is a French word that has leaked into English. It doesn’t mean zombie literally, but it describes people who have found a way to exploit the system for their own benefit — people who have legal entitlements to income streams. In other words, “rentier” describes a class of folks who contribute absolutely nothing to national prosperity — zombies.
Before the French Revolution, favored groups were able to secure special privileges and monopolies giving them the right to income. For example, the people from whom we bought our first house in France had a monopoly on the importation of tobacco from the New World. I don’t know who granted this monopoly, but typically it was the monarchy. And typically, such monopolies were given away either to appease a potential adversary or simply to raise cash for the crown by selling off a stream of future income.
The French crown was always short of funds. It found it could raise substantial sums by selling the right to earn a “rent.” It might sell the right to collect tolls on a highway or a river, for example. Or it might sell the right to collect taxes (thereby getting its own tax revenue up-front and letting the rentier deal with the hazards of collection).
Any official document needed an official stamp. Naturally, the crown sold off the right to stamp documents. If you wanted to make a business deal, buy or sell land, or get married, you had to pay the person with the stamp.
Over time, the rentier class grew larger and harder to support. More and more of the kingdom’s energy went to support what was essentially a group of parasites who produced nothing. This is part of the explanation for the French Revolution. The system became so inefficient and was made so fragile by waste that a relatively minor setback — a couple years of bad harvests — caused widespread hunger and revolt.
In modern, developed societies “rents” come in many forms. They are often granted to favored groups in exchange for political support. Old people vote, for example. Political parties seek their votes by promising ever-larger health and retirement benefits. Rich people make campaign contributions. Politicians typically grant them favors too.
By the close of 2012, there were zombies everywhere. Throw a cream pie from almost any street-corner and you were almost certain to hit one in the face. If the street-corner were in Washington, DC, you’d probably hit two or three of them.
A recent report in The Wall Street Journal confirmed that zombies don’t work very hard. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been compiling detailed data on how people use their time. Researchers tracked how many hours people slept, ate, watched TV and worked. And guess what? They found that federal government employees put in 3.8 fewer 40-hour weeks than employees in the private sector. Here, the cost of zombification is clear: If the zombies were forced to work the same hours as people in the private sector, the government would save $130 billion a year.
Meanwhile, over in the Pentagon, R. Jeffrey Smith had his eye on the zombies too:
Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.
The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.
And then, even after they retire … the zombies keep feeding off the productive sector:
Updating a 2010 Boston Globe report that documented the practice, CREW found that over the last three years, 70 percent of the 108 three-and-four star generals and admirals who retired “took jobs with defense contractors or consultants.”
As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., put it during a 2009 hearing on Obama’s nomination of former Raytheon executive William Lynn to become the deputy secretary of defense, “it’s an incestuous business, what’s going on in terms of the defense contractors and the Pentagon and the highest levels of our military.”
During the Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney mentioned that 47 percent of American households now receive some form of support from the government. In a better democracy, none of those people should vote. They all have a conflict of interest. They should admit that they find it difficult to separate their own personal interests from those of the nation and abstain from casting a ballot. Instead, they “vote their own pocketbooks” — usually coming down on the side of diverting more resources from the productive sector to their own personal consumption.
The zombies corrupt the system. The march to Stalingrad continues. And the Downside takes over.
Tags: Boom and Bust, Financial Crisis, intervention, Mercantilism, zombie nation



" Obviously, a good education provides people with the objectivity to make informed decisions when voting, but unfortunately, far too many people vote on party lines, if they vote at all. "
1) What constitutes a "good" education"
2) Good education or not, just how much does a single vote accomplish? How many voters in a constituency diluted further by one representative in 300. If that one rep doesn't toe the party line (meaning party bosses) he accomplishes nothing for his constituency. Good luck with that. As Hoppe points out all members of the ruling democratic apparatus have high time preferences, short term gain for long time pain and the worst pain they suffer is being voted out of office. They never suffer personal financial losses for bad decisions.
There you are Jerry – recognising the problem is half way there to a solution – so – what's your solution to party politics?
If you, or anyone else, doesn't have a concept for a "good education", does that mean you are prepared to take whatever is dished up? I would describe a "good education" as one that taught self respect, the ability to think logically, the way to analyse an issue, how to determine and find facts, and probably most important of all, to know what it means to have integrity and deal with people honestly. That's just for starters.
To start with I no longer vote. I started to question the process within 15 years of voting age. Since then I've become convinced it's a waste of time. There is no solution to party politics. I'm with Hoppe. Democracy sucks. The only solution is to get rid of it. That's where education comes in but don't expect the socialist education system to teach that. This 'democracy' we live under will disappear in due course. We used to have a semblance of a capitalist society. IMO, we have drifted into soft fascism which will likely transform itself into a harder fascism or dictatorship. That is bad news since fascism leads to wars. Socialism leads to poverty because of the calculation problem and it runs out of members to loot. If we must suffer under some form of government, keep it small and powerless but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Too many think there is something for nothing in the current system.
In my experience, even in universities, we only pay lip service to teaching critical thinking skills. For most people questioning their own belief systems is a traumatic experience, and they try to avoid it if they can. With a voting body that, for the most part, doesn't know why it believes what it believes, the prospect for "informed decisions when voting" is slim.
I agree fully. Nothing what I've learned about economics or politics over the years had been taught to me in schools. I've had to do it on my own. It turns out my best teacher was my father who instictively disliked socilaism from an early age and really didn't have much use for any politics. I didn't understand it when I was young and even used to get into arguments with him about such topics. I followed the thinking of the people I worked with for quite a number of years. It took several election cycles, a period of high inflation in the 70's to get me to read and study. I discovered Mises about 1980 after a long difficult search and many books ending with Human Action. That changed everything for me. My father too, who had only a grade 9 education really enjoyed Mises works. Finally someone with whom he could connect with.
Just a couple of remarks on your post James, I don't believe I have endorsed compulsion as a means of cooperation. The "right" to join or not join an organisation should be the standard, but as you would be aware, there is strength in numbers compared what an individual can achieve against a corporate structure. However, as seems to be the standard for so many organisations, the heirachy push their own barrow in the interests of self preservation, whether it is through lobbying, corruption or buying politicians.
As for voting, the commonly accepted standard is to set a minimum age, but that is divorced from any educational standards. I'm not sure why you want to argue from an extreme point of view unless you support the idea of only selected people being allowed to vote. Obviously, a good education provides people with the objectivity to make informed decisions when voting, but unfortunately, far too many people vote on party lines, if they vote at all.
Getting a "good" education seems to be another problem these days, along with getting honest and reliable information from the main stream media.
What a wonderful and enlightening winge Bill, it must be good to get that off your chest? Apart from suggesting that certain people be denied the vote, you seem incapable of suggesting one practical remedy for the rampant self interested corruption developed, and perpetuated, by the elitist financial and political class.
If you live in a nation of "zombies" – whether it's France, the US or Canada, who do you think created these "zombies"? Please don't tell me that the "zombies" are so "powerful" that they can control these nations, and there is nothing that can be done to change their domination?
Maybe, you should be looking at the paranoid fear of the "elitists", who seem to be terrified of the thought of ordinary people having any "power" to assert pressure on their privileges? (The old feudal/monarchy system) The examples of trying to destroy unions, or vote rigging to deny people the opportunity to vote – these are manifestations of this "fear".
Whether you like it or not, every society is made up of people with different abilities, with different interests, with different cultures, and it is only through cooperative effort that there is any hope of building a sense of harmony into that society.
If you have any practical and constructive thoughts on how such effort can be achieved, it could be very beneficial to a lot of people
"Whether you like it or not, every society is made up of people with different abilities, with different interests, with different cultures, and it is only through cooperative effort that there is any hope of building a sense of harmony into that society. "
This has got to be the most insightful and true things you have ever said Guggzie. I can't speak for Bill but I am sure he would agree with this statement in full. It's unfortunate that you think voluntary cooperation is somehow manifested in compulsory unionization and voting for welfare benefits because clearly they are the products of the coercive state.
So let me ask you a question Gug, would you be fine with children voting? Anybody who truly wishes true democratization should.