Inclined to Liberty
05-02-2009
, 11:55 PM
05-03-2009
, 12:14 AM
05-03-2009
, 12:18 AM
05-03-2009
, 12:24 AM
05-03-2009
, 12:36 AM
05-03-2009
, 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 Painting Mental Images
ENVISION WHAT COMES TO mind when we hear, as stated that evening at my dinner party, that companies fire workers just to increase profits. The statement invites us to picture poor workers and their families living at the mercy of a greedy employer. And now, jobless, those workers will no longer be able to maintain even the meager standard of living to which they have become accustomed. This sad and exploitive “picture” is embellished by envisioning the employer as an ogre who has pushed his workers out onto the street just to increase profits, without regard for their suffering.
In a flash, the mind creates mental pictures produced by these types of phrases and, depending on our political or social stance,these images can erupt into a quick visceral reaction, with such responses as, “There ought to be a law!” or “How can one be so cruel?” We paint these pictures, using the philosophical, political, or religious brush of our leanings. Then, we convey the mental pictures to others with personal coloring. Every day we are inundated with stories, often distorted, by the media. We develop meticulous mental pictures from these stories, with very little understanding of the circumstances surrounding, or leading up to, them.
The baseless, albeit vivid, mental images harbored by supporters of Germany’s reign of terror during the 1930s and 1940s helped pave the way to “justify” the deaths of six million Jews and the suffering of millions more. History is replete with human gullibility; countless rulers have swayed their followers into believing that their economic problems have been caused by someone else’s race, ethnicity, religion, or economic status. Unfortunately, attempts to trigger these baseless mental images are not limited to only rulers and political aspirants.
Television reporters are very adept at delivering punchy sound and visual bites that can trigger unfounded mental images. As gas prices rose in the spring of 2006, TV networks went hunting for“victims” and aired 183 statements from upset or beleaguered gasoline buyers. ABC World News Tonight showcased a woman who claimed she had to pawn her wedding set to put gas in her husband’s truck. A week later, CBS Evening News suggested that higher pump prices meant the elderly were going to starve: “They’re used to living on fixed incomes, but now, skyrocketing gas prices are forcing seniors to make difficult choices. Some are cutting back on gasoline; others say they’re eating less.” The Nightly News showed a California man filling up his pick-up truck. “$3.41,” he groused. “They should start handing out knives to cut your arm and leg off.”
The reporters left no doubt about who the villains were. On ABC Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer reported: “Pain at the pump. Oil companies are getting ready to raise prices again. Is it time to turn the tables and tax their record profits?” Three days later, her colleague Charlie Gibson announced: “Pain at the pump. The big oil companies report billions in profits. Is our pain their gain?” The CBS Evening News opened with this indictment: “Gas price gouging. I’m Sharyl Attkisson with what Congress is—and is not—doing about it.”
Such antibusiness stories fill newspapers, talk shows, and television news programs. Many have even worked their way into movies. As we read and hear more of these distorted stories, we eventually begin to believe that there must be a vindictive villain behind everything we don’t like. We hear that a drug company has just discovered a cure for a horrible disease—but the next day we hear that the company charges far too much for a pill that costs very little to produce. Yes, that second pill rolling off the factory production line may cost pennies to produce, but that second pill would never have been manufactured unless the pharmaceutical company had spent millions of dollars to produce the first one. As for oil companies: if gouging us with higher gasoline prices is theirway of making record profits, then why stop at only $4 a gallon? Why not make a real killing and charge $10, or better yet, $100 per gallon?
Attacking profits as a means to lower prices is the very opposite of what political leaders and news commentators should do. Grand profits are the most effective means to lower prices, since they attract investors and entrepreneurs to a business that they would otherwise overlook. The resulting competition and innovative technology arising from this new interest underlie the process that brings us an endless stream of goods and services at the most attractive prices.
When questioning the prices of goods, we cannot ignore the fact that prices reflect relationships between the perceived values of two objects: money and goods. Price changes are simply changes in those relationships. When we say that a good is higher in price, we mean that it now takes more money to get it. But we could just as well say that the money is lower in “price,” since it now takes fewer such goods to get it. Thus, to determine if something is truly more expensive now than in the past, we must include in our considerations the value of money.
Derry Brownfield offers this clever illustration to describe the relationship between money and gasoline:
"I began a recent presentation before a large group of cattle producers (R-CALFUSA) by showing a paper dollar bill and a silver coin. The words 'one dollar' is inscribed on both the coin and the paper, yet the paper dollar will only pay for about one quart of gasoline at today’s prices, while the silver dollar will pay for well over five gallons. I explained to my audience that consumer prices are not high—the paper dollar has lost most of its value. It makes no difference how high the price of gasoline goes, a silver dollar will continue to buy gas for 20 cents a gallon, exactly the price gas was during the Great Depression. Based on 1940 prices, a paper dollar is worth about two pennies."
No one owes us gasoline, medicine, food, jobs, or anything else, so why should we criticize the person for the price he charges or the wage he offers for something that he was not obligated to provide us in the first place? It would make more sense to criticize the grocer for not selling us cheaper gasoline or medicine than it would to criticize those who are
offering to sell them at all. When we consider all the goods and services provided by those who have chosen to do so, we can only be thankful for their voluntary contributions to the betterment of our lives.
When reading and listening to the barrage of antibusiness news stories, we can easily be led, if we are not careful, to paint the mental image that anyone who makes money—as long as it’s the other guy—is never as wise, fair, moral, compassionate, or deserving as we are.
In a flash, the mind creates mental pictures produced by these types of phrases and, depending on our political or social stance,these images can erupt into a quick visceral reaction, with such responses as, “There ought to be a law!” or “How can one be so cruel?” We paint these pictures, using the philosophical, political, or religious brush of our leanings. Then, we convey the mental pictures to others with personal coloring. Every day we are inundated with stories, often distorted, by the media. We develop meticulous mental pictures from these stories, with very little understanding of the circumstances surrounding, or leading up to, them.
The baseless, albeit vivid, mental images harbored by supporters of Germany’s reign of terror during the 1930s and 1940s helped pave the way to “justify” the deaths of six million Jews and the suffering of millions more. History is replete with human gullibility; countless rulers have swayed their followers into believing that their economic problems have been caused by someone else’s race, ethnicity, religion, or economic status. Unfortunately, attempts to trigger these baseless mental images are not limited to only rulers and political aspirants.
Television reporters are very adept at delivering punchy sound and visual bites that can trigger unfounded mental images. As gas prices rose in the spring of 2006, TV networks went hunting for“victims” and aired 183 statements from upset or beleaguered gasoline buyers. ABC World News Tonight showcased a woman who claimed she had to pawn her wedding set to put gas in her husband’s truck. A week later, CBS Evening News suggested that higher pump prices meant the elderly were going to starve: “They’re used to living on fixed incomes, but now, skyrocketing gas prices are forcing seniors to make difficult choices. Some are cutting back on gasoline; others say they’re eating less.” The Nightly News showed a California man filling up his pick-up truck. “$3.41,” he groused. “They should start handing out knives to cut your arm and leg off.”
The reporters left no doubt about who the villains were. On ABC Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer reported: “Pain at the pump. Oil companies are getting ready to raise prices again. Is it time to turn the tables and tax their record profits?” Three days later, her colleague Charlie Gibson announced: “Pain at the pump. The big oil companies report billions in profits. Is our pain their gain?” The CBS Evening News opened with this indictment: “Gas price gouging. I’m Sharyl Attkisson with what Congress is—and is not—doing about it.”
Such antibusiness stories fill newspapers, talk shows, and television news programs. Many have even worked their way into movies. As we read and hear more of these distorted stories, we eventually begin to believe that there must be a vindictive villain behind everything we don’t like. We hear that a drug company has just discovered a cure for a horrible disease—but the next day we hear that the company charges far too much for a pill that costs very little to produce. Yes, that second pill rolling off the factory production line may cost pennies to produce, but that second pill would never have been manufactured unless the pharmaceutical company had spent millions of dollars to produce the first one. As for oil companies: if gouging us with higher gasoline prices is theirway of making record profits, then why stop at only $4 a gallon? Why not make a real killing and charge $10, or better yet, $100 per gallon?
Attacking profits as a means to lower prices is the very opposite of what political leaders and news commentators should do. Grand profits are the most effective means to lower prices, since they attract investors and entrepreneurs to a business that they would otherwise overlook. The resulting competition and innovative technology arising from this new interest underlie the process that brings us an endless stream of goods and services at the most attractive prices.
When questioning the prices of goods, we cannot ignore the fact that prices reflect relationships between the perceived values of two objects: money and goods. Price changes are simply changes in those relationships. When we say that a good is higher in price, we mean that it now takes more money to get it. But we could just as well say that the money is lower in “price,” since it now takes fewer such goods to get it. Thus, to determine if something is truly more expensive now than in the past, we must include in our considerations the value of money.
Derry Brownfield offers this clever illustration to describe the relationship between money and gasoline:
"I began a recent presentation before a large group of cattle producers (R-CALFUSA) by showing a paper dollar bill and a silver coin. The words 'one dollar' is inscribed on both the coin and the paper, yet the paper dollar will only pay for about one quart of gasoline at today’s prices, while the silver dollar will pay for well over five gallons. I explained to my audience that consumer prices are not high—the paper dollar has lost most of its value. It makes no difference how high the price of gasoline goes, a silver dollar will continue to buy gas for 20 cents a gallon, exactly the price gas was during the Great Depression. Based on 1940 prices, a paper dollar is worth about two pennies."
No one owes us gasoline, medicine, food, jobs, or anything else, so why should we criticize the person for the price he charges or the wage he offers for something that he was not obligated to provide us in the first place? It would make more sense to criticize the grocer for not selling us cheaper gasoline or medicine than it would to criticize those who are
offering to sell them at all. When we consider all the goods and services provided by those who have chosen to do so, we can only be thankful for their voluntary contributions to the betterment of our lives.
When reading and listening to the barrage of antibusiness news stories, we can easily be led, if we are not careful, to paint the mental image that anyone who makes money—as long as it’s the other guy—is never as wise, fair, moral, compassionate, or deserving as we are.
05-03-2009
, 12:47 AM
05-03-2009
, 12:47 AM
05-03-2009
, 01:09 AM
05-03-2009
, 01:18 AM
05-03-2009
, 01:31 AM