Posts Tagged ‘economic friction’

Friction

Thursday, January 1st, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a bearing is designed to reduce friction so the shaft it holds can rotate with as little loss as possible, adding sand and thus more friction increases loss to the point the shaft fails in service. We all intrinsically understand that friction makes machines break and work less efficiently but for some reason we don’t correlate that effect to our economy. Just as the friction from sand, rust or a failed bearing reduces efficiency and eventually causes failure in a machine, economic friction from taxes, regulations, corruption and having interest rates set by unaccountable people with dubious alliances, all cause an economy to function less efficiently and eventually fail.

Economics to many seems like magic, giving economists the gravitas of Merlin, but like Merlin’s magic, economics is mere pseudo science. Economics tries to explain how an economy works, and prove it understands by correctly predicting future economic conditions, given present circumstances. A tall order by any standard. It’s fatal flaw is that one of the underlying functions of economics is the human being. We are instrumental to economic outcomes. Clearly, in any area of “science” that involves the human being our science is woefully inadequate, especially as compared to our grasp of physics, mathematics and lately astronomy.

It is our lack of perspective about ourselves that makes our research into ourselves, our nature and emotions, reactions, decision making, etc… so difficult. Without comprehensive knowledge of ourselves we cannot ever really call economics a science. Our lack of dispassion concerning ourselves results in our self interests driving our observations. It is self evident that every politician always wants more power, to do whatever she sought power for in the first place, therefore, given a choice of several options she will always choose the option that results in increasing her power, it is in her self interests. Each time this happens the friction to our economy is increased. The effect on the economic outcome of each person is small individually, but the cumulative effect is huge, and the friction adds up.

Money flows through the economy like hydraulic fluid, mechanical energy or electricity flows through a machine. In a machine the engineer strives to limit the resistance to the flow of whatever the energy the machine is processing. In an economy, the engineer is the government the blue prints, government policy. The engineer builds a machine to do it’s function as efficiently as possible but a bureaucrat builds the economy as inefficient as possible. That is because the engineer is using mathematics and physics to build her machine while the bureaucrat has only his self interest to guide him. No matter how schooled in economics he may be, the bureaucrat’s incentives are in the end, self interest. The same hold’s true for politicians only to a much greater extent.

Every tax, license, regulation, requirement, zoning law, etc… requires an entrepreneur to get a lawyer, which costs money and time, multiplying the friction of the initial rule. Where an engineer puts in a bearing a bureaucrat puts in a clamp that he can tighten at will. The politician has hands to grease, and his ability to grease those hands, is based on his ability to effect changes in economic friction. He can tighten down the clamp a bit, so only the largest company in an industry can turn a profit, returning hundreds to one to his corrupt backer, for her campaign donation. At every level of government, friction to economic operation is piled on, and our politicians lament the gap between the rich and the poor.

This is only one of the fundamental problems with the “planned” economy, and why the laissez faire economy does so well… friction. The planned economy is nothing but friction, bribes, restrictions, permissions, the list of impediments to operating a business efficiently, even with virtual slaves as workers are so pervasive, that instead of adding value at each stage of the manufacturing process the system actually destroys value. In other words, the cost of labor and other inputs become so high due to friction, the value of the manufactured good is less than the original cost of the raw material. All due to friction imposed by politicians, because economics is a pseudo science, in the hands of self interested politicians.

We all want a well functioning economy. A well functioning economy produces general prosperity, low crime, advancing standard of living as well as other social advantages like less racism, more virtuous people and a return to the nuclear family as the primary family unit, that is because in a well functioning economy, we are too hard at work getting ahead, to commit crime, if we are selling sofas we could care less if the buyer is African, Asian or space alien, it is the color of his money that counts, the effects of a well functioning economy are many and positive. The way to a well functioning economy then… is to remove friction from our economy.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Ideal Government

Monday, December 29th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, ideal government would be invisible to those “governed.” Imagine bringing up your children in a place where politics doesn’t matter because the government is limited the way the founders intended? Under such a system you and I would go about our lives not having to interact with government at all. No bribes, no political favor, no licenses, no taxes, very limited legal code, well, you get the picture. If we lived in that way, with only the most limited amount of government possible to provide for common defense, and standards to facilitate commerce, our interactions with government would be few and far between. Moreover the ability of a faction to seize control of government and drive their agenda down our throats would be eliminated. Prosperity would be the norm and the wealth gap would naturally contract under such a system, but then again, that is exactly why it would never be allowed, and anything like it is so hated and vilified by the elite.

Under such a system, where government is strictly limited to national defense, protecting the property rights of the people and providing standards, (not regulations), to facilitate commerce, people would have little need to engage government. Most people wouldn’t even know where the town clerk’s office was because there would be no need. But that is exactly the rub, isn’t it? If that were the case, government officials would not be able to make such large amounts of money, their ability to enrich themselves through crony capitalism, graft, bribes, and outright theft would be eliminated, if we didn’t need government permission for everything.

Every time you have to go to the town clerk’s office to get the government’s authorization to engage in some activity, the role of government is enlarged and power of government is enhanced, with a commensurate increase in the status and wealth of those in government. The cronies of government officials would have to work for their wealth instead of having it bestowed to them. Regulations create the conditions where some people, those with the right connections, can become immensely rich while those without the connections must stay in the station they were born into, regardless of their abilities and virtues.

The ability of potential despots to seize power would be eliminated. If government is limited so it is not allowed to monitor it’s citizens, pass reams of laws and regulations that empower the state over the individual, control the people with military power, seize the property of individuals, or practice arbitrary power, a would be oppressor could not oppress. There is not one case in human history where a power given to government has not been abused, no matter how much the people agreed when that power was given, that power has always been abused. That is because giving power to government is stepping out onto a slippery slope.

Without the friction that regulations, licenses, fees, taxes, and political favor create, the economy of a nation would operate at maximum efficiency. Without the elite controlling who can get ahead by rewarding their friends with favors, the ability of people to become uber rich would be lessened, and the wages of the bottom rung of the economic ladder would be increased… such that the gap would naturally become narrowed. The resulting rise in demand for labor would drive up the wages for that labor. The supply demand curve would swing to the advantage of workers, instead of management, because rapid economic expansion that such a system would encourage would keep the demand for labor high.

The power and prerogative of the elite would be limited as well. Which of course would be unacceptable to them. Those who wield power are always loathe to relinquish that power. They take, they never give, that is why the natural progression of every government, political system and republic that has ever been constituted, has been eventual tyranny. The elite convince us that if only they had a little bit more power… oh, the good they would do for us. Conversely they claim that any small taking of their power would result in calamity. Anyone trying to limit the power and role of government therefore becomes a de facto enemy of the state.

The goal of limited government is not a pipe dream, it has been achieved in the past, it is the limiting of government absent violence and revolution, that eludes humanity. People vote with their feet whenever they are allowed to. No one flees to Cuba, people flee from Cuba to the US, Canada and Europe. No one is migrating to North Korea, people risk their lives escaping that tyranny. Venezuela doesn’t have a problem with people from other South American nations rushing their border, people are trying to get out. Yet the elite in the media, government and academia fill the airwaves with propaganda that if only we could become like North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba, life would be a utopia.

Every human being yearns to be free, prosperous and moral. That is why people vote with their feet, fleeing despotism to places that are only marginally more free. Despite that reality, anyone who seeks to limit the power of the elite are enemies of the state, and are treated harshly while those who seek to unshackle the power of government are hailed as heroes… like Che Guevara. We could achieve near universal prosperity, if only the friction to the economy was removed, by limiting the ability of government officials to decide who gets what. Limited government creates the conditions where a despot cannot amass the governmental might he or she would need to usurp power, by eradicating arbitrary power itself. Yes, limited government would be a boon to humanity, that boon would come at cost to the elite however, and as such, will be fought at every turn, but the gain by winning the battle, even engaging in it… ideal government, is well worth the effort.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

One Step To Improve the Economy

Monday, August 11th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, one simple thing all governments could do to improve their economies, would be to create a panel, that would go over the regulations and laws then make an annual list of regulations and or laws that are outdated, redundant, harmful, pernicious etc… The legislative branch would then see to it that these regulations and or laws would be removed from the books. In this way any country could at least grab the low hanging fruit of economic improvement. There is not a country on Earth that would not benefit economically from this approach.

 

Regulations are the nemesis of economic expansion. While a standard facilitates market transactions, regulations are designed to give an economically favored group a leg up, in an other wise free market transaction. Since they give an economically favored group special treatment, they both skew the market, warping it and creating bubbles, and they create pernicious incentives. Pernicious incentives like, it being more economically beneficial to seek political favor than, to provide a good product at a low cost. Regulations undermine economic expansion in other ways as well.

 

Typically the favored economic group are older more established firms. Regulations raise the cost of entrance and extend the time line where a business operates in the red before it starts making money. This allows older more established firms to make higher profits and pay for political favor. Even a seemingly innocuous regulation like requiring a furniture store to have a changing table in their bathrooms, benefits older firms, they have the monetary cushion to absorb the cost, but new firms might be running in the red to hopefully get to profitability, so the extra cost might be the tipping point.

 

Now… many will say, oh well, so sad… but may I put this to you? As I have explained before in prior articles, small entrepreneurial businesses are the engines of growth in a market based economy, so when government regulations hinder the formation and operation of entrepreneurial companies, that regulation or law directly lowers the standard of living for that generation… and that lowering is magnified over later generations due to the effect of compounded growth!

 

Take the negative effects I have outlined and multiply them by the thousands of regulations on the books of every country on Earth, if they were combed of nits, a huge source of friction to the economic machine that is the market system would be removed. Such a panel, given sufficient funds and prestige, who’s ideas were followed through on… actually erasing the regulations and laws the panel suggested, would reward such wise governance with economic success. There would be push back, from those elite who’s sacred cows go on the chopping block, but I’ve heard somewhere, sacred cows make the best hamburger.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

I Pencil and Complexity Theory

Monday, October 14th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the most commonly known analogy in economics is, I Pencil. This narrative shows that the capitalist system produces things of such complexity it would be impossible for a central authority to do it. Moreover this story illustrates what can be produced at extremely low cost opening up their availability to the masses of people. What is not well known about I Pencil. is that it also illustrates the complexity theory of economics. This is a very important point that the writer of I Pencil couldn’t have known because complexity theory had not been invented. What makes this important for the average person to understand is that it shows the futility of government control over an economy. If we as a people understood this very important concept, we would stop undermining our own economic prosperity by electing progressives, who only seek power and authority over everything.

 

I Pencil. is a story of how a pencil comes into being. If you or I set out to make a 10 cent pencil the cost to us would be extraordinary. The cedar in a pencil is from the Appalachian mountains, the graphite and glue from where ever they are cheapest made, the paint from China, the eraser from rubber made in south America and the brass ferrule from who knows where. For you or I to gather all these components and assemble them into a pencil would be prohibitively expensive, yet they are produced by the market system so cheaply they can be thrown away, if the eraser is worn. All the inputs are from diverse parts of the world, made by diverse people for diverse reasons. The point is they are all available to the capitalist to produce something that is fundamentally different in kind from the original inputs.

 

All of the advancement of Western society has been through the innovation of the market system. Innovation that is made possible by the diverse products the market provides. As new products are made available by the market more innovations are available to the entrepreneur. If graphite were not available the pencil would not be possible. People, not governments, make innovations. Governments stifle innovation through regulations that, while well meaning, serve to undermine the availability of new products. This is usually done to protect some job or politically favored industry. The result is always lower wages, lower productivity and high unemployment. All add up to a lower standard of living.

 

The various inputs to a pencil are manufactured probably for other reasons than to make pencils. Glue is made for furniture and a myriad of other reasons by the glue industry. These divers industries can also be considered components in the complex system that is the market or an economy. These diverse actors in the economy are interdependent, are able to learn, they communicate, and they respond to their environments, IE, the demand for their products versus the cost to manufacture them. Firms within industries are another example of complex actors that lower the granularity of the approach. Each has an interest in creating new products that can be used in new ways.

 

As new products come onto the market more products can be made or perhaps made cheaper. Like the mechanical loom made it possible for the laborer to have a wool coat, because coats became cheaper, new products allow entrepreneurs to come up with new products and services that further improve the lot of Man. The new products are different in kind from the inputs. Like a pencil is different in kind from rubber sap, graphite or cedar, new products that could have never been predicted emerge from old and newly made available products. No one ever born, let alone a bureaucrat, could have predicted that an innovation devised by Bell Labs, the transistor, coupled with another Bell Lab invention, PCM, would enable the innovations we live with today.

 

Just as the digital computer is different in kind from the transistor the transistor must have been invented before the computer would be possible. The original innovation as well as the emergent innovation could only come about under a system of bottom up emergence into a viable product. Once government eliminates the complex system of the economy, breaking it to the whims of the political elite, innovation will necessarily stop. The standard of living of the people of the world will stagnate and then decline. We see this in every nation that has risen up under capitalism and fallen under socialism. England used to be the world’s super power until it destroyed itself with socialist regulation. Japan rose under laissez fair capitalism and now is grinding to a halt under socialistic friction, Hong Kong has maintained laissez fair market regulations and continues to see a steady increase in the standard of living of it’s inhabitants as well as huge immigration.

 

The best way to understand this fact is by watching human emigration. The mass of people move from places where the markets are limited by regulation for whatever reason, socialist, religious, protectionist or any other, to places where the market system is more free to work. That they often undermine the market in their new homes by calling for protectionist measures, socialist “fairness” or demand religious exceptions, is a tragic consequence of freely moving people. That governments go along with these anti market regulations is a sure sign of the decline of that nation. Soon the people will vote with their feet to leave that weakened magnet and are drawn to the new country that has embraced laissez fair. Let it work, should be the motto of every nation on the planet, because it works.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Economic Argument Why Obama Care Must be Defunded

Monday, September 23rd, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me… Obama care is an economic train wreck. The devastation it’s already done, has lowered the standard of living of the World’s people for generations, let alone the future damage it will do. Since the growth of an economy is an aggregate thing, it piles upon itself, slow economic growth, for whatever reason, lowers the pile that is being piled on as well as the amount that is added… The effect is not only immediate but cumulative and everlasting. This is very bad, if you consider that we have been under this economic malaise, since the recession was claimed to have ended. So, not only are your economic outlooks lowered the well being of your children and grandchildren will be effected… negatively.

 

Think of this, the Federal Reserve has been printing 85 billion dollars a month for a year. In 12 months that accumulates to a bit over a trillion dollars. Now compare that trillion of printing to our actual GDP growth. The US is an economy that is about 15.7 trillion dollars, (according to the BEA)… at a growth rate of 2% yields annual growth of about 320 billion dollars. In other words, to get 310 billion in annual growth the Federal Reserve is printing, from whole cloth and adding into the economy, over a trillion! That implies a recession loosing 680 billion annually if the printing went away! Moreover, it’s a pathetic return at 1/3 of the money put in! Instead of getting more money out, due to the ability of banks to magnify the money supply, the FED is seeing negative return on their printed money! So… what is happening to that 680 billion? Is there so little business activity the money is setting in the banking system’s reserves, or is it going overseas? Now the question must become, why is it not spent here?

 

Businesses need to know what their cost structure will be to project future profit or loss. Obama care throws a huge monkey wrench in firm’s ability to predict. The law is thousands of pages long, it’s impossible to know how the bureaucrats will interpret and apply them, heck, they haven’t even written all of them yet, and they have already written tens of thousands of pages of regulation! Therefore, no one knows what they really are, or will be, and obviously how they will effect businesses. Moreover, Obama care is costing firms real money today to hire experts to answer these very unanswerable questions, money that could be better spent investing in labor or productive machinery. The sad part is, until Obama care is implemented, or not, the uncertainty of it will continue to corrode the economy, like acid. If it is implemented the continuing damage to economic growth will be immortalized in entitlement.

 

The lack of investment in machinery and labor will accumulate. As the demand for labor goes down the price of labor must go down. Meanwhile, Obama care is driving up the cost of doing business so prices must rise else firms will have to lay off or go out of business, further driving down the demand for labor. As people’s wages are driven down by Obama care, and the prices we all have to pay for the goods of society go up, our standard of living must necessarily go down… profoundly. In Complexity Theory this is called a feedback loop. The negative input into the system, is fed back into the system, by the system, in a self sustaining way, thus exaggerating the initial input.

 

Experts are telling businesses large to small that Obama care is going to hobble them. That is why so many firms and groups, using political favor, have escaped Obama care. The associated paperwork, taxes, and regulations will drive up their costs and lower their efficiency dramatically. No one knows how much… but everyone knows it will be impressive. Since the first responsibility of a business owner is to keep the doors open they will try mightily to do just that. Unfortunately, due to Obama care, they have to limit the hours their employees can work, else they get hit with the most draconian parts of the law, simply to keep the doors open. Small businesses, who have much more limited ability to hire lawyers and experts than large firms, are effected far more than big ones.

 

Small business is the engine of any economy. Real growth in an economy is organically driven by small startups not giant ones. Entrepreneurs get an idea and they start a business. If that new idea revolutionizes some aspect of business, a new economic cycle is started. Ford did that with the Model T, Gates did that with MSDOS… hydro-fracking and 3D printing are just the newest incarnations of this paradigm. When the environment for small business becomes toxic, as Obama care makes it, the cycle is shut down. Banks won’t loan money to a fly by night who has no useful projections of his or her cost structure. That would be an irresponsible thing to do with depositor’s money. The leviathan bureaucracy of today’s government, a Godzilla that has been expanded dramatically by Obama care, now has the ability to regulate in real time. Thousands of little bureaucrats in their cubicles, dutifully regulating anything they can get their hands on, especially new ideas… undermining economic growth in the process.

 

The main reason our economy is so wounded is Obama Care, pure and simple. This tragically flawed law stops the entrepreneurial process in it’s tracks. Small businesses are hurt the most… magnifying the effect on real economic growth. Diminished growth, that will be exaggerated over time, as future growth has a smaller base to expand upon. Nothing I have said here is astounding or out of left field, it is economics 101. Any economist will tell you that incentives count. This is a basic law of economics. But, due to the willingness of this administration to use the mechanism of government, for political ends, economists are cowed… one only need look at the way Nial Ferguson was treated. Obama and the democrats have silenced most opposition, and set regulatory incentives against the capitalist mode of production. That is why the republicans must not blink, they must defund Obama care… Not as much for ours, but our children and grandchildren’s economic future depends on it.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Theory of Money

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Milton Friedman’s theory of inflation and money supply presupposes a frictionless plain. A frictionless plain in economics is absolute lasses fair economic conditions. Friedman was a great proponent of lasses fair economics. I think he understood that his theory of money was effected by the economic environment of any given country. If an economy has lasses fair then Friedman’s theory is absolutely true, however, under normal economic conditions… his theory needs to be qualified. This has direct and important implications for the economic theory of money and it’s applicability to present and future economic circumstances. Our economic well being is directly effected by this theory and the qualifications on it.

The first aspect of his theory is, as the money supply is expanded beyond the actual economic growth of a country, the inflation rate will have a one to one ratio. If GDP was expanding at a rate of 1% and the money supply increased at a rate of 2% then there would be 1% inflation in that economy. This is a pretty self evident idea and is verified by graphing economic conditions in several countries over several years.

The other aspect of his theory, is that under conditions of recession where potential capacity is less than full utilization, then an expansion of the money supply may draw the economy closer to full capacity. By pulling in underutilized resources to feed the increase in demand that the additional money creates. Like the US FED has tried to do with QE1, QE2 and TWIST. The ECB (European Central Bank), has begun similar initiatives. These policies by the FED and ECB to expand the money supply, to bring the World economy closer to full utilization, have failed, and in fact have hindered economic expansion. Not due to any deficiency in Friedman’s theory but to an under accounted for facet of economics.

The under accounted for factor is the friction that regulation and political favor play in any economic expansion. To make the point, lets consider two economies that are operating at far less than optimal output. In the first, regulation is at a very high level, and political favor is required to start or expand a business. In this case the increase in money supply will not increase the utilization of that country’s infrastructural capacity. The friction that the regulation creates will keep potential businesses from hiring more employees to increase output to meet the demand.

We saw this happening in the US in the 1970s. The money supply increased, but economic output didn’t, even though the economy was operating far below it’s potential. Unemployment was high but inflation was also high. We can say that the friction, that regulation and political favor generated, stood in the way of utilization of the extra money, and so the increase in the money supply only fed into the inflation.

In the other possible scenario, we have an economic system that has lasses fair… and is underutilized due to recession. In this case if the money supply is increased then it would be easy for firms to hire more employees and increase output. This is because the friction to business is low in a country that allows it’s markets to function unfettered of government interference. We saw this in the 1980’s. After the stagflation of the 1970’s, under Carter’s government centered model of economics, Ronald Reagan instituted more lasses fair economic policies, and the economy regained it’s full productive capacity… and began growing at a fast rate.

This is why I say that Friedman’s theory of money supply is dependent on the economic conditions of the country in question. If the government implements government centered economic policies, then additional money only feeds into the inflationary feedback loop, due to the difficulties of bringing people and productive capacity back online. If however, the economic conditions in a country are such that bringing under utilized plant and workers back into production is easy, then we will see that Friedman’s theory works as stated.

Therefore, if a country’s economy is underutilized due to recession, and an expansion of the money supply is used as a means of increasing GDP, then for it to work, that country must lower the level of government interference or friction, else that expansion of the money supply will feed into an inflationary spiral, or if the economic expectations are too pessimistic, then we will see the money sit in the banking system, until economic conditions are more favorable to economic expansion. Then all of the inflation that has been banked will emerge and lower the value of every unit of currency in the economy. Inflation will appear where there appeared to be none… perhaps even hyper inflation.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Bureaucracy

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if a person was to examine the issue open eyed, the reasoning person would ascertain that the primary source of friction in a modern economy, is the bureaucratic organization that is quickly becoming omnipotent. This should challenge everyone, to think of a way by which, the bureaucratic organization can be tamed. But it may very well be, that the time has passed to actually tame the bureaucratic beast, before we are gored by it’s horns of intransigence.

Look at the countries that used to have very effective economies and now have poorly performing ones. Japan is a perfect, and recent, example. Formerly Japan’s growth rate was unparalleled. People extrapolated that growth rate into the future and stood in awe. Japan would rule the Earth in a few decades… was the opinion in the 1980’s. Of course… that didn’t happen.

Instead, Japan went into recession, followed by slow growth. Japanese GDP has been slow for two decades. The government has gone from huge surpluses to giant deficits. The government has thrown billions of Yen at the slow growth, but slow growth seems to be the new norm, in Japan and elsewhere. This despite the good work ethic in Japan as well as the high education level.

Japan should be booming economically but it is not. Why do you suppose? They have used demand side economic stimulus. Far more than the bankrupt USA ever could. Yet, the Japanese economy remains in the doldrums. Many claim it is due to the aging of Japan. But in a true entrepreneurial society, change presents economic opportunity, to meet new needs.

Here we have touched the problem but we have yet to grasp it fully. In an entrepreneurial society, change is always opportunity but in a socialist society, change means hardship, because no one fills the new needs. Those needs are not filled so the people with them suffer, the potential entrepreneur suffers, because he or she didn’t get rich and the economy suffers because, it’s missing all the jobs that were not created when the entrepreneur didn’t get rich.

With the high level of educational achievement of the Japanese people why do you think there is not sufficient entrepreneurial energy to meet the new needs and enrich a new generation of entrepreneurs? The answer is the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy grows as a government matures. The good public servant never bends a rule no matter how idiotic that rule is. Bureaucracy is unbending and rigid. The real world is fluid. Bureaucracy seeks to change a complex system into a simple one.

The fundamental natures of human existences are complex systems, from our family life through neighborhood politics to the macro economy, we interact with complex systems all the time. The role of bureaucracy is to limit that complexity so we can more easily see the local peak. But bureaucracy begets bureaucracy. It quickly outgrows the need and smothers any economic recovery like a pillow a baby. Bureaucracy is unaffected, by the smothering of this or that, bureaucracy is it’s own best good.

Especially when it is a source of monopoly and hack jobs. Bureaucracy naturally breeds corruption, due to the fact that bureaucracy makes it’s own law, polices it’s law, then adjudicates it. No need for traditional governmental structures, that limit the power of any one unit by means of separation of powers, or some other outdated notion. No, it is much more efficient to invest all the power of government into one body, that is appointed for life and unaccountable. No way that could ever be a problem…

But, of course, it is. The material welfare of us and our children are manifestly lowered. Unless we get some kind of control over the growing bureaucracy we will be consumed by it. The very reason the Elite love it, it’s efficiency in passing regulation, and enforcing that regulation, is why it is so very dangerous. The only real means I can come up with is the citizen protection department of the NUMA.

Sincerely,

John Pepin