In the battle of ideas, supporters of capitalism and economic liberty sometimes face an uphill climb because of a perception of heartlessness.
When companies get in trouble, we’re the mean people who don’t want to give bailouts.
When workers are laid off, we’re the Scrooges who don’t want perpetual unemployment checks.
And when some workers aren’t earning much money, we’re the scoundrels who don’t want to boost the minimum wage.
Our “problem” is that we care about good results rather than good intentions. Motivated by the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat, we look at indirect effects and long-run consequences. And this is why we routinely reject statist proposals.
The challenge, of course, is educating others so that they understand that small government and free markets are the best way of providing more opportunity and better lives – particularly for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
This is why I was very happy to see this new video from Learn Liberty. It basically explains the process of “creative destruction” to show how progress and prosperity are undermined when politicians try to “protect jobs.”
I also like the video because it makes the point that our living standards are the result of how much we produce, not the number of jobs.
In other words, we don’t want people employed for the sake of being employed. We want them doing things that add value to the economy.
That’s one of the reasons why many government jobs are wasteful. People who could be creating wealth are instead imposing costs.
But let’s shift back to the topic of “creative destruction.” In my speeches, I’ll sometimes make the point that progress can be painful. Consider these examples:
The invention of the light bulb was very bad news for the candle making sector.
The invention of the automobile was a grim development for the horse and buggy industry.
The invention of the personal computer devastated typewriter companies.
In every case, these inventions made society much richer, but they also caused the destruction of thousands of jobs and bankrupted many firms. These were very real tragedies for certain people.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, we know that it was good that this “creative destruction” took place. We even know that the descendents of the candle makers, buggy builders, and typewriter producers are better off because our economy is so much more productive.
Just as the video explains that we’re much better off because 90 percent of the population no longer has to work on farms.
Yet we’re still faced with the paradox that supporters of capitalism are called heartless even though we’re the ones that support policies that create wealth and lift people from poverty.
P.S. On a separate topic, I criticized the World Bank in 2012 for putting together a “tax effort” scorecard that gave nations higher scores for heavier tax burdens.
Well, international bureaucracies must be in love with higher taxes (probably because they’re exempt from having to pay tax) and you won’t be surprised to learn that the International Monetary Fund has now published a similar report.
The nation that gets the highest score (i.e., the nation with the worst tax system) is Italy, with an average of almost 99 percent, though France (97 percent) is probably very envious and I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked for a recount.
The nation with the lowest “tax effort” is Guinea-Bissau, with a “failing” grade of about 32. I doubt this means they have a good tax system. I suspect it simply means nobody complies and the government doesn’t expend much “effort” on trying to collect.
Among developed nations, Singapore got the lowest score, with an average of 38. Which means, of course, that they have a very good tax system.
Though there were no grades for places such as Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the Cayman Islands, so the report is not complete.
The United States, for what it’s worth, got a 70. So we’re not nearly as bad as countries such as France and Italy. But we’re much more onerous that Singapore.
We also have a higher “tax effort” than officially communist nations such as China and Vietnam. Gee, I guess that means we can be proud of the IRS, huh?
[…] part of “creative destruction,” which I’ve labeled as the best and worst part of […]
[…] part of “creative destruction,” which I’ve labeled as the best and worst part of […]
[…] part of “creative destruction,” which I’ve labeled as the best and worst part of […]
[…] part of “creative destruction,” which I’ve labeled as the best and worst part of […]
[…] should acknowledge that new competitors, new technologies, and new products are part of “creative destruction,” which can cause pain for some people in the short […]
[…] should acknowledge that new competitors, new technologies, and new products are part of “creative destruction,” which can cause pain for some people in the short […]
[…] always get destroyed when there’s competition. And that’s true whether the competition comes from inside a country or outside a […]
[…] always get destroyed when there’s competition. And that’s true whether the competition comes from inside a country or outside a […]
[…] is what is called “creative destruction.” It’s painful, but it is why we are much richer today than we were in the […]
[…] is what is called “creative destruction.” It’s painful, but it is why we are much richer today than we were in the […]
[…] previously explained that “creative destruction” is the best and worst part of capitalism. This new video has more […]
[…] special about capitalism, though, is that this process is what makes all of us richer over […]
[…] special about capitalism, though, is that this process is what makes all of us richer over […]
[…] special about capitalism, though, is that this process is what makes all of us richer over […]
[…] quote isn’t as famous as what he said about creative destruction, but it deserves to be highlighted since it succinctly explains how capitalism is the system that […]
[…] Yes, markets can be cold and impersonal. And, yes, “creative destruction” is no fun when you’re part of the “destruction” (even if it results in your children and grandchildren living better lives). […]
[…] I shared a video last year that pointed out that Americans live in a nation that became prosperous thanks to “creative destruction.” […]
[…] a company that loses out (or if you’re an investor in that company). but it’s also what enables us to become more prosperous over […]
[…] Sounds like Ms. Kohn should spend some time with this video. […]
[…] também enfatiza que os consumidores são os reais beneficiários deste processo competitivo […]
[…] ever-more efficient and less costly ways of generating ever-more valuable goods and services. Watch this video and this video for more […]
[…] He also emphasizes that consumers are the real beneficiaries of this competitive process. […]
[…] He also emphasizes that consumers are the real beneficiaries of this competitive process. […]
[…] His closing comment basically argues that we need more government because of what is sometimes called creative destruction. […]
[…] The chapter notes that creative destruction plays a vital role in growth. […]
[…] For those who are interested in such things, the study looks at what drives improvements in productivity. Is it firms becoming more efficient because of competition, or is “reallocation” as weak companies vanish and dynamic new firms emerge? […]
[…] There’s also another Learn Liberty video that teaches about creative destruction. I’m a big fan of all their videos, including the ones on […]
[…] Why has entrepreneurial dynamism slowed? What’s happened to the creative destruction described in a different Learn Liberty video? […]
[…] Why has entrepreneurial dynamism slowed? What’s happened to the creative destruction described in a different Learn Liberty video? […]
[…] back, we will export more of a different product, which Neil seems to think is a good goal. This creative-destruction allows markets to more effectively use inputs for outputs. How we label the exchange […]
Government also requires unproductive efforts in the form of mandate and regulatory compliance.
There are actually three phases to Creative Destruction:
Creative Innovation – These are new ideas that do not directly affect some existing product or process. For example, an app for your phone that does something completely new.
Innovative Destruction – These are ideas that directly affect an existing product or process. For example, the auto/buggy whip or a robot that replaces 5 workers.
Creative Salvage – These ideas reallocate unproductive resources to productive endeavors.
While creative salvage may seem to be a lower order innovation, it is more important than the other two. One person might recognize that his talents are under-utilized and find new employment. An iPhone radically changes the world, but occurs infrequently. A single individual improving himself or his environment hardly moves the needle, but in a competitive dynamic economy where everyone is improving, it becomes an overwhelming force.
Government spending tends to reallocate resources, both productive and unproductive, to sub-optimal activities; and because government does not have a profit guideline, those resources remain far longer than they would in private hands.
The current economy is dying because the resources normally available for creative salvage have dried up, through government employment, unemployment and disability support, and means-testing mal-incentives.