Dolors Demise?

We face a specter of deflation. This condition, deflation, characterized the Great Depression. Prominent economists, like Harvard’s Lawrence Summers, blame secular stagnation: they blame slackening demand for the shriveling economic growth that has put downward pressure on interest rates, incomes, and prices in America and in the world.  They attribute secular stagnation to the accumulation of income in the hands of savers and lenders (banks and capital holders, corporations, the rich, the single and childless, and seniors) and to the relative depletion of means among spenders and borrowers (laborers, mom and pop businesses, the poor, parents and families with children, and the young). For example, about 20% of income goes to 1% of America’s population; and about 20% of wealth is held by 0.1% of Americans. In fact, excepting the period that just preceded the Great Depression, inequality in America has never been greater. For all of its virtues to the individual, saving was bad for the economy then. And it is now. It takes money out of circulation—away from those who would take risks to create new products or services and jobs and industries--away from those who would use it to buy a house or a business or an education—away from those who need food or clothes or diapers today. Mattress-money has utility only to him that hoards it. In circulation, money has utility to every hand through which it passes. The more it moves in a year, the bigger is our Gross Domestic Product. But savers don’t need to spend. They don’t consume much. They can wait until something they want is cheaper. And it will be cheaper if the economy is characterized by savers. When savers dominate, goods get cheaper and jobs get fewer. When the economy contracts, savers and lenders won't take the risks that return economic growth. In other words, the tendency of our economy was, just before the Great Depression, and is, at present, to distribute income to those doing the least to grow or sustain the economy. This trend, toward an economy dominated by savers and lenders, is deflationary and deflation is the condition that characterized the Great Depression.

According to economists, this tendency to secular stagnation is exacerbated by population trends in America. Birth rates are falling: in fact, in recent years, American births will not suffice to replenish the existing population. Moreover, the population is aging in America. The dwindling size of America’s population will naturally reduce the number of consumers and workers and shrink the size of America’s economy. Comprised increasingly of older adults without children, America’s population will spend less and save more. As more savers save more, a dreadful economic cycle will spin—spending will shrivel—wages will wither—jobs will end--dollars will rise—debts will crush—exports will fall--companies will fail—stock listings will shrink--rates will fall—as the returns on their savings fall, savers will need to save more or take more risks in order to retire--because the economy is in turmoil, savers will be more risk averse; some may resort to storing money in their mattresses. As more savers save more, this dreadful cycle will begin anew. In other words, this trend, toward a population of older adults without children, is deflationary and deflation is the condition that characterized the Great Depression.

In this light, consider the ideal economic man. This individual would selflessly do what is best for our economy. He would work hard. And spend everything (ie. on taxes). He would borrow. And spend the proceeds immediately. He would marry. His wife would work always. She would not save either. They would have children—many children like themselves—tomorrow’s workers, consumers, taxpayers, and parents—and not tomorrow’s savers or retirees. This coolie and his wife would never retire except in death. Now ask yourself, would you want to be this person? Would you want your children or grandchildren to live this way? Is this how our collective wisdom suggests that we should live in America? If not, please recognize that your culture is counterproductive to the economy. And if your personal agency is uneconomic--as it conforms to a counterproductive culture--it will ultimately be unsustainable.

Now, in the same light, let’s consider our new economic institution, gay marriage. This institution has largely been created by our courts without the benefit of economic testimony. Where are the economic witnesses on this issue? For some reason, the courts won’t hear them. Nonetheless, they should speak.

The U.S. Census Bureau (2010 ACS) reports that there were 594,000 same-sex households in 2010 and that about 115,000 same-sex households, or 19% of these households, were then rearing children. In absolute terms, same-sex households represented 0.5% of American households and they were raising about 0.3% of tomorrow’s taxpayers, workers, civil servants, and/or soldiers.  In relative terms, the data are more remarkable:  in 2010, married-couple households were more than twice (two times) as likely to have children at home as were same-sex households. This data suggests that the typical married-couple household should expect to expend at least twice as much on child care, extra housing expenses, food, furniture, clothing, transportation, school fees, lessons, and travel for children as the typical same-sex couple does. The typical married-couple had 1.25 children. To raise 1.25 children to age 18, the typical married-couple expends over $300,000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture--$241,000 per child. This expenditure, a sacrifice to rear tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers, civil servants, and/or soldiers, represents about 400% of the median net worth of an American family according to the Federal Reserve’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances. Apparently, while typical married couples expend 400% of their typical net worth rearing tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers, civil servants, and/or soldiers, same-sex couples don’t—or won’t. Consequently, the spending of same-sex couples is more discretionary. Consequently, they are able save much of the $300,000 others expended. Because same-sex couples are characterized by natural childlessness and by the discretionary income typical of savers and not by the compulsory spending typical of parenting couples, they are among those who do the least to grow or sustain the economy. In fact, same-sex marriage is a poster relationship for ebbing macroeconomic demand—an economic institution advanced at a time when economic demand is already ebbing and economic depression is already menacing.

While, apparently, same-sex couples buck the economic yoke of children elemental to a sustainable economy, they will, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, nonetheless, partake of the same (or better) social services and benefits. In some states, this relative economic advantage for same-sex couples has already been created by the courts: all of the social service schemes created over decades by legislatures on behalf of traditional families have been awarded to same-sex couples by federal courts without amendments or alterations that would equalize the disparate impacts. In this way, same-sex marriage is made an equal but separate unjustly enriching and unsustainable institution. In other words, these policies have made same-sex marriage relatively more economic and traditional marriage relatively less economic to the individuals involved therein. Consequently, the new same-sex unions have a competitive advantage in a competitive world characterized by economic and employment insecurity. This relatively disadvantages heterosexual married couples economically. This economic inequality, created by our courts, will discourage some traditional marriages, some child-bearing, some child-rearing, some consumer spending, and consequently, macroeconomic growth or longed-for economic recovery—simply because government-sponsored economic incentives already favor same-sex unions and thus tax traditional unions in some states. Perhaps it already has? For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, at present, birth rates in America, unsustainable since 2011 (per the Economist), have come to rely on unintended pregnancies—and not on deliberate decisions to parent. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering extending this perverse equal-but-separate economic regime to all of the states in the Union.

Like many other childless savers, gay marriage advocates have utilized their retained capital macro-uneconomically; unlike many other childless savers, militant gay marriage advocates have utilized their retained capital in ways that are destructive to the economy and to the economic prospects of others. To avert anticipated discrimination, some have sought to spoil the economic opportunity of those they consider their opponents. We have witnessed the destruction of livelihoods and businesses by gay marriage vigilantes to enforce a peculiar, personal moral code. Does this unchecked vigilantism conduce to security and stability—to the conditions necessary to the formation of families, of new companies, and of jobs? Vigilantes should remember that their means will be their ends: falsehood and force beget falsehood and force—not unanimity or even unity. Moreover, can spoliation yield economic security or sustainability? The scorched-earth strategies of militant gay marriage advocates are economically destructive and un-American.

To say that gay marriage induces economic inequality and macroeconomic decline and that vigilantism by gay marriage advocates is destructive to the economy is not to say that same-sex love doesn’t matter. It is simply to say that gay marriage is uneconomic--relative to traditional marriage—from a macro perspective.

Some have suggested that gay marriage will be the end of the world. This author disagrees. Legal gay marriage will not be the end of the world; it will, however, be the end of the American (and hence the world) economy as we have known it. Gay marriage will be the end of the economy because it will disadvantage faith—belief in the improbable providence of the American Dream, in children and child-bearing and child-rearing, in information (ie. in education and economic data; as Wes Pruden suggests "Fact and fiction deserve equal respect in an age when all things are equal."), in independent conviction and thought and action, in just laws and judges that will defend ideas and persons and property, in our leaders, and in a blameless, benevolent God who orders human affairs. It already has. It will be the end of the economy because it will elevate and empower an institution that is economically unsustainable and economically disruptive—because it will relatively demote and disrupt an institution that has always sustained the economy (the traditional family)--because it will induce a perverse inequality. Consequently, its effect, in tandem with other adverse economic trends, will be economic depression. It will be the end of the economy because the LGBT lifestyle, so socially ascendant in the present, is unsustainable unless the economy is planned—planned by an un-American government—planned as to population—planned to regulate childbirth—forcefully planned to redistribute the future income of one’s children to childless pensioners—planned by proponents of planning—planned by those practicing diverse but unsustainable lifestyles. And planned economies have always languished. In other words, although it would temporarily console a 1% minority of American couples, gay marriage will invite economic desolation and totalitarianism for all Americans. Can the consolation of the LGBT community last when the economy ends? Will your support and/or silence seem so economic or wise then?

Because current income distributions and childlessness are unsustainable, we have come to rely on government as our economic arbiter. We have come to expect government to sustain what is unsustainable through periodic extralegal redistributions: for example, to take money from those who save it, to give unearned income to those who spend it, to rescue uneconomic jobs and industries, to print money to avert defaults in government or interruptions to social services, to sustain consumption and demand with trade imbalances, to support childless pensioners on the labor of other people's children. This gives government power over subsistence and, according to Alexander Hamilton, "power over a man's subsistence is a power over his will". The more unsustainable is our macroeconomy, the larger, the more arbitrary, and the more intrusive must be this government arbiter. In crisis, the actions of this arbiter, once legitimized by laws, must become lawless, tyrannical, and totalitarian: conserving and enlarging its own power--rationing capital away from economic activity--underwriting uneconomic political and social programs--manipulating the collective opinion against the just claims of economic minorities--becoming the enemy of individual freedom, of self-directed activity, and of personal property--discouraging the investment, initiative, innovation, and liberality that could keep us from captivity. Does this seem familiar?

Let’s be clear, secular stagnation and its causes (which are inducing deflation) arise from secularism—from a lack of faith in anything except stores of money and the security this suggests. And secularism is bad macroeconomics. This leaves secularists torn between a) their uneconomic, secular autonomy and b) a strictly planned economy--an economy that is ultimately incompatible with individual rights.

Hypocritically, the culture of secularism—a culture that celebrates accumulation as the end of life--is counterproductive to the economy. In fact, our rodent-like focus on hoarding cheese as its own end shrinks and repels the macroeconomic cheese. For short-term satiation, we have resorted to eating baits from collective traps. Some say our culture is unsustainable morally and spiritually. Secular stagnation reveals that it is unsustainable economically. If economy is paramount (“it’s the economy, stupid”), why have we embraced a culture that is counterproductive to the economy and is incompatible with sustained individual freedom?


While economic data will defend this thesis--that secularism is bad macroeconomics--it is harder to explain why prosperity has generally departed from those who are the least secular in America (ie. the average, once middle-class, conservative Americans)--from those who do the most to grow the economy. In our economy, there seems to be a micro bias against what is sustainable on a macro scale. For some reason, the economy has relatively punished the unsecular (ie. conservatives, evangelicals, this author who writes about the economic unsustainability of secularism) and relatively rewarded the secular (ie. wealthy elites, technocrats, and gays). Call it the unseen hand. Today, as arbiter (ie. because mortgage credit was nationalized by bailouts), government is able to selectively reward its secular supporters (ie. with mortgage modifications) and punish the unsecular (ie. with foreclosures). And often, public policy secularizes (ie. state funding for abortions and birth control providers, specific tax credits for two-income households, grants to liberal educators). Of course, the secular are staunch supporters of interventions by government in their favor--though their ascendency accelerates inequality and macroeconomic unsustainability in America.


Because current macroeconomic conditions are not sustainable, NASA is warning about "inequality-induced famine" and an irreversible collapse.


Secular convergence was economically unsustainable in revolutionary France, in the Soviet Union, and in Maoist China. It will be in a godless America. For the sake of macroeconomic sustainability, the faithless must admit Providence into their society and the faithful into their prosperity.

It matters economic, in God, we Americans, do not trust. We have put our trust in paper dollars and deceits: we thought that experts could tell us what is productive--without approaching what is moral. We have applied principles of economic efficiency to everything--except the macro-effect of our own lifestyles. Because we thought our economic intercourse depended on it, we have become un-American--to some, the Great Satan--a force for unsustainable secularity in the world. Even believers have feared man more than God and the word of economic experts more than the word of God. We became so provident that we evicted Providence. And took secular economists as our prophets of plenty. Then, brutalized by an economy that is increasingly inefficient, distorted, and unsustainable, many believers became brutish--characterized by an anxious legalism and an abandoned acquisitiveness. Some, because they don't trust God, would have us sacrifice all of our sensibilities (moral, religious, and otherwise) to collective economic security. Some eschew conservatism of the social variety--imagining that inebriates can be made to balance budgets. As evidenced by U.S. trade deficits and budget deficits and debts and debt service, it is apparent that their "conservatism" has failed. It is time we recognized that it is conservatism of the social variety that sustains the macro-economy. It is time we admit that our economic choices haven't been provident without Providence. It is time we acknowledge that abominations invite economic desolations. Alternatively, if we persist on our macro-improvident way, in its fruition, will we find the secular-efficient, collectively-planned, and necessarily totalitarian lifestyle cushy? Is there nothing dearer to us Americans than the security of perishable substance?

There is much argument in America about which class of persons is culpable for our constrained economy. Some blame the 47%. Others consider themselves the 99% and blame the 1%. These arguments demonize others; predictably, they lionize substance. We are exploited by them. Ultimately, they will divide us because a) secularity is not sustainable and because b) we are unable to discover a unity between us that is not secular.

There was a time when statesmen concerned themselves with virtue as policy (ie. economic policy). For example, it was clear to Benjamin Franklin that: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Free Trade Within

Deflation, falling prices, is what defined the Great Depression. As prices fell, wages fell. Investment contracted with contracting returns. When the prices of goods couldn't cover their costs, jobs disappeared. Consumers without jobs couldn't consume. And animal spirits suffered.



Is it really a good time for America to pursue new bipartisan trade agreements--agreements that would further harmonize our economy with large markets like Japan and Europe where deflation is resurgent and menacing? Already deflation is contagious: American median household income is down $5,000 since 2007 and American consumer prices began to fall in December. Does deflation here really need encouragement in new trade agreements?



Is it really a good time for America to pursue new bipartisan trade agreements when external (ie. trade agreements) and internal disincentives (ie. regulation and uncertainty) to entrepreneurship already destroy about 100,000, or two percent, of America's private businesses each year according to Gallup and when young entrepreneurs are already an endangered species according to the Wall Street Journal and when small businesses still account for about two-thirds of net new jobs? As companies close, there is less competition for workers, which depresses wages. Does this deflationary trend need encouragement in new trade agreements?



In an increasingly desperate and deflationary world, why do we expect American small businesses to compete with companies that don't have to compete with American regulations (ie. the necessity to provide health insurance to their employees and the liability of withholding and remitting payroll taxes to government)? Why do we expect American workers to compete with workers who do not have to pay for the same social insurance schemes or public education programs or environmental protections? The company and worker who does not have these costs will be cheaper and more competitive to the end consumer. And the American worker, "protected" by a nanny state, will be less employed than his overseas counterpart.



Let's free trade within our borders. Otherwise, free trade is just mercantilism against everyday Americans--a run on our nation's dwindling resources by international capitalists encouraged by our policy makers--a run on our nation's dwindling resources which leaves us captive and impoverished (ie. selling personal services to each other to buy our manufactures overseas).



Let's free trade within our borders. Otherwise, free trade imports the labor of aliens to support the consumption of retirees while laborers in America are excluded from economic exchange. This would cause dangerous divisions in American society especially in a deflationary environment. Would a leader working to conserve his country pursue such a policy in the present?



It's time for American policy makers to compete with their counterparts overseas: a fair trade
agreement would equalize by reductions the wages, benefits, and pensions of administrators in the US with those of their counterparts in Mexico. A parity of regulatory costs would reduce the disparate burden on American companies and workers competing in the NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership markets. This would make American goods cheaper in America and Mexico. Regulators, whose consumption is curtailed in the short-term, could be retrained to do productive work.

Insecurity About "Infidels"

Only a quavering coward would seek to enforce his beliefs on others by taking or defacing their life or property illegally. Here is one who doubts that right makes might--who lacks faith in the ultimate justice of his cause--who fears the truth about his faith--whose god is a human or is circumscribed by human forces--whose god (ie. or science or philosophy) must rely on his compulsion to effect his ends. This insecurity about infidels is expressed violently by jihadists and repressively by those who act to enforce political correctness and moral complaisance (to effect their gain and influence). These extremists serve the same end. Do they serve the same vile "god"?

To The American Dreamers

Entrepreneurs are an endangered species, according to the Wall Street Journal, particularly among young adults. Do these young adults need a lecture from their Baby-Boomer parents' generation about work ethic and enterprise and thrift and risk-taking? Why have they turned from the pat answers of the past? Is there some defect of character in this rising generation? Or do their choices reflect a demise of incentive?



Perhaps they have discerned that it won't matter if they work hard and if they have indomitable resolve and if they have a revolutionary idea or service or product and if they have patents and trademarks and copyrights and if they have exclusive international supplier and distributor and consumer channels and if they have optimal invested capital and if they have an Ivy-League or graduate education and an abundance of industry experience and expertise and model employees--if the intellectual or physical property they create does not have the clear protection of immutable, egalitarian laws (ie. the Constitution). All their pain and labor might birth a state-sponsored abortion. Or, they might become a surrogate mother without any consideration ("you didn't birth it--it takes a village"). Or, they might subsist--breast feeding their baby for years until it is finally desiccated by a state demand for what was essential to its existence. Perhaps many surmise that government IS the risk to entrepreneurship and hence to the economy (do state-sponsored laundry inspection services constitute an economy?)--a risk that can only be mitigated by avoiding the responsibilities entrepreneurs assume--private responsibilities that are magnified daily by government--even as burgeoning government commonly breaches contracts of its own creation.



Like Cuba and Venezuela before her, America has arrived at a point where prosperity is political. Expressions of ideology are rewarded and punished economically. The cheese is moving and mice must follow. So, suspend your humanity. Censor yourself. And obey your rodent-like instincts. Your cheese depends on it.



To prosper, young Americans should seek experience in state-sanctioned (socialist) activism and enterprises. To prosper, they should promote revolutionary redistribution of wealth and influence. Only a principled pauper would resist this current--move in with his conservative parents--to confront anew notions of a bygone but longed-for America. So why are so many young adults choosing this anguished course? And waiting on the world, unsustainable as it is, to change for the better? From their refusal to be reconciled to our mad and maddening cheese chase--a chase that will end in a trap unless we consider its course--we, their seniors, might learn something about responsibility.