Column on What Fundamental Change

What Fundamental Change?
Tibor R. Machan
Senator Obama won over millions of voters by promising fundamental change
in America under his leadership. He was not specific about what kind of
change but there were hints here and there and by now a fairly clear
picture of the proposed basic change has emerged.
In America the way people became better off economically is by working and
earning a living from their work. A bit of luck never hurt and some also
experienced setbacks. But in the main the American system did not involve
fixed economic classes, huge groups of people whose level of prosperity is
fixed and rarely if every changes for better or worse. Instead, the
American system approximated an on-going, never ending marathon race, with
people’s positions changing for the better or worse, depending on their
self-initiated effort and some luck. Over all, the economy was taken to
be, mostly correctly, a win-win process. One person’s gain didn’t come at
another’s loss–in all the billions of deals that were struck, big ones or
small, all the parties were taken to come out ahead, as judged by their
own needs and objectives.
This, indeed, is one central reason so many people from across the globe
wanted to be living in America. Elsewhere they were pretty much stuck, for
a variety of reasons. They included their social situation from which it
is difficult to escape without gaining political pull, favor with the
government and members of the upper classes. In America the idea was that
people could move without such favoritism, at least in the bulk of cases
and government would stick to guarding the rules of the process, with no
theft, no fraud, no deception tolerated.
But it looks like that this picture of the economy in America, admittedly
never fully realized, will now be systematically altered. Instead of
accepting that the citizenry is stretched out over a lengthy economic
continuum, from poor to wealthy with all the steps in between and the
positions they hold constantly changing, the dominant picture now looks
like what it used to be in feudal times, with a small segment of very rich
at one end and a huge number of poor or moderately well off at the other.
And this is seen to be fixed unless someone like Barack Obama and his team
of government managers interfere and forcibly spread the wealth around.
The way the Obama team sees the American economy is that it involves what
is called a zero sum game–someone’s gain must be another’s loss. Wealth
is static. For those who lack it they need to take it from those who have
it. And since ordinarily that would be criminal, it needs to be
accomplished politically, in which case it is deemed to be legitimate
wealth redistribution, a matter of socio-economic justice!
This picture also assumes that wealth just happens, that it doesn’t
require that people create it. Thus no one earns the wealth he or she
owns–it just happened to come his or her way. And when some have a good
bit of wealth, it must mean they were overly lucky and that, of course, is
quite unfair. Those who lack wealth or a good bit of it are, in turn,
unlucky. There is nothing they could have done other than what ended them
in their situation. And that’s grossly unfair.
To remedy the unfairness of it all, the fundamental change that Barack
Obama and Co., and their supporters imagine must be achieved in
Washington, D. C., the center of the country’s political power (certainly
not its economic engine). It is not work, entrepreneurship, investment,
and some luck that will bring about the prosperity of those who haven’t
enough of it. No, it is politicians and bureaucrats making policies that
will redistribute the wealth of the country. They will tinker with the
economy, regulate business, assign privileges and duties and that way they
will bring about basic change. They will institute a planned economy, one
that rejects the ideals of the free market, of what the Nobelist F. A.
Hayek called the spontaneous order, in favor of a highly regimented
Of course, that fundamental change has been tried over and over again
throughout history, recent and ancient. Earlier it was mercantilism that
embodied the idea of a top down planned economic system. It is this system
that was criticized by Adam Smith for failing to enable people to produce
wealth. Later the top down idea was embodied in socialism and fascism.
Both of these were in time total flops.
We will now probably see whether Barack Obama and his team can work
miracles by doing the impossible, ordering people to make wealth and
taking it from them and redistributing it according to their vision of

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Column on What Fundamental Change

  1. Unknown says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s