Now we can add border militarization to America’s list of “moral equivalents of war” — all of which involve tightening state control over the public and funneling billions in loot from taxpayers to corporate interests. As part of the US Senate’s “Immigration Reform” package, the border control budget will increase by $38 billion over ten years — including the cost of funding a whole slough of choppers from Northrop-Grumman and Sikorsky.
One of the most important functions of government is buying up industrial output at taxpayer expense, and putting otherwise idle production capacity to use, rendering naturally scarce and costly inputs artificially cheap to big business at taxpayer expense.
Consider all the “industries” whose primary “customer” is the state, whose products are bought involuntarily by taxpayers, and whose “users” are a captive clientele of inmates, students, soldiers, etc., with no say in anything. We already had the Military-Industrial Complex, the War on Drugs and associated Prison-Industrial Complex, not to mention the post-9/11 National Security State. The Border War adds billions more to the bottom lines of military contractors and private prison corporations.
It’s Economics 101 that when you subsidize something, people consume more of it. When you subsidize certain inputs, the dominant business model shifts to adding more and more of these artificially cheap inputs. The result is a model of industrial growth based on adding more and more energy and natural resource inputs. The state bankrupts itself because demand for these subsidized inputs outstrips government’s ability to provide them.
Consider the share of industry’s total inputs that are artificially cheap thanks to the state. The state preempts ownership of vacant land and gives privileged access to oil and coal companies, preempts civil liability for oil spills and pollution with its “environmental” regulations, fights wars to guarantee American access to foreign oil reserves on American terms, and spends many tens of billions on a Navy whose main function is to keep the sea lanes open for oil tankers — all to keep energy artificially cheap. It subsidizes long-distance transportation, artificially increasing market areas and firm size. It spends tens of billions on an educational system whose main purpose is to supply corporate HR departments with a trained, docile work force at public expense. ...
At the same time, though, the state makes things that are naturally free or cheap artificially expensive
-What are some specific examples of this? cliffelam, this seems like something that would be in your wheelhouse.
Some examples off the cuff, IP privileges that socialize costs and privatize profits like sanctioning generic drug manufacturing and raising access costs to technologies. Perpetual war also bids up prices on first order goods as well as preferences corporate firms of cooperative ventures. Energy and transportation subsidies also preference one set of infrastructural design priorities over others. The long-haul vs short-haul differentials kill larger extended firms while leaner smaller ones flourish. That is until the state steps in to preference one - the more legible ones - over the others.
Huh? Generally people like to talk about "pricing externalities" but they generally mean they want to price YOUR externalities and not theirs. For example, they will say: you don't pay enough for gas due to blah blah blah. But then they don't have a replacement number of kids and would freak if you upped their social security contribution. I think you can make arguments, though, for free bus service to avoid building new roads, to cite an example of something that is not free but seems to be. Did I understand the question? -XC
I understood the statement to mean that the state takes things that would otherwise be free and adds barriers of entry to the use of them. I was looking for an example of this. I could have misunderstood the statement too.
Oh, well, professional licensing for most things is a state supported barrier to entry. Do you really need "barbershop inspectors?" I think you can have a good rousing discussion of private licensing (think Underwriter's Lab's) versus government licensing on most thing. -XC