A Letter to the Editor by Rhino Times Reader Austin Morris
The terminology we so often and absentmindedly use has been determined by the political Left. The Left dominates the mass media and most other avenues of communication such as social media.
And so homosexual has become ‘gay’, sex change surgery has become ‘gender affirming care’, racial discrimination has become ‘Affirmative Action’, and Leftism itself has become ‘Progressive’ (even if they say so themselves).
Control of the language is one way that the Left manipulates how people think. Orwell was prescient enough to recognize this well before others, and incorporated this linguistic legerdemain in Nineteen Eighty-Four as Newspeak. It’s a powerful tool because it is both effective and subtle. Most people never realize that they are being manipulated.
The renowned economist F.A. Hayek was often a lone voice in his championing of radical Laissez-Faire economic policies during his lifetime. Such policies had revolutionized the World by bringing unheard of economic growth to Great Britain, the first industrial country, and were copied in short order by other nations that feared being left behind. But competitive free markets had fallen into disfavour, and Hayek wanted to advocate for less intervention and more freedom, so as to reinvigorate them. His efforts included a more honest characterization of the components in a mixed economy. The Left even then was using sly and deceptive terminology to depict the two very different elements of contemporaneous economies. They called them The Private Sector and The Public Sector. This implies that you and I own a piece of “The Public Sector”, doesn’t it? But that is untrue. Neither you nor I own a single brick of a single school, office building, or even a paperclip. The government sector does NOT belong to us. It belongs to government. The “Private Sector” is what actually belongs to the public.
Hayek wanted to illustrate this by reforming the terminology that was used. So he redefined the issue as “The Productive Sector” and “The Parasitic Sector”.
In economic terms this was a much more accurate characterization since the “Private Sector” creates wealth and “The Public Sector” leeches off that wealth to support itself.
Needless to say, the Left didn’t care for this redefinition because it is a champion of the state, at all times, in all instances. But that does not detract from the veracity of the terms. The Productive Sector produces. The Parasitic Sector leeches. Hayek won a Nobel Prize in economics. He knew whereof he spoke.
Hayek’s correct terms should be used as a matter of form, so I use them. These terms imply nothing at all disparaging to the people who work in the Parasitic Sector. It is an essential component of Western economies. The terms just accurately depict the bivalence of our mixed economies.
Two of my uncles worked their whole lives in the Parasitic Sector; one in the Royal Air Force, the other in the British Police. They were better men than me.
It disappoints me when public servants take exception to Hayek’s description of the sector in which they work. There is no denigration of their work or their selves The term Parasitic Sector is an accurate and valid descriptor, but it references only the economic aspect of their work. Because – in purely economic terms – their work is indeed parasitic. No wealth is created; no profit is generated. In fact, wealth creation is impaired by the size of the Parasitic Sector, because it drains away resources from the Productive Sector.
I have been assailed, by people who misunderstand, and excoriated for suggesting that people who work in the Parasitic Sector are personally parasites. Nothing is further from the truth.
But in purely economic terms their remuneration is indisputably parasitic. As the song says, they “..live off of other people’s taxes”.
These truths might offend some who work in the Parasitic Sector, but they are truths nonetheless. The terms are objective and make no judgement of the people who work to repair our roads, defend our shores, and keep our cities safe. Their work is vauable and occasionally essential. Thank you for your work… but you owe your salaries to those who create wealth.
– Austin Morris
Weird argument that public sector means the public ‘owns’ something. I would think it more logical to understand that the public sector is FUNDED by public dollars (ie taxes) and the private sector is FUNDED by private investment. But that is a side note.
Not a bit surprised that you are a big fan of FA Hayek as he is always identified as a libertarian versus a conservative and was a fan of free capital markets that clearly fed the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes (ie labor). He of course also has to ignore the dangers of free markets that lead to monopolies, income equalities, lack of a social safety net, labor exploitation, and most relevant during his time here in the US, racial inequities were clearly not going to be rectified by free markets.
Take private education for example. Public education not only allows all people access to a measure of education, but it also mandates education even for families who would feel pressured by free markets to put their children to work to make end meet in the short-term at the expense of the long-term benefit of an educated community.
Free Captial markets are great in theory in academic papers but have proven again and again throughout history to only benefit the few at the expense of the many. So logically, I far more value John Maynard Keynes theories.
But you be you.
Chris has everything wrong. Govt/public schools are those you have to pay for (taxes) no matter how bad they get…even if they shut down for a year at a time. Non-government schools are the ones that are accountable, as you can take your tuition somewhere else if they aren’t good. (In addition, non-govt schools are exceedingly more efficient and less costly.)
A free market has every incentive to ignore race in favor of competence and who has money to spend. Racial discrimination a hundred years ago in the US was largely done via government– local, state, and federal laws.
Free market has every right to ignore the more challenging students such as those with learning disabilities, those with limited access to transportations, those with physical disabilities etc….
Nothing like profit driving services looking for the easy path and ignoring the those that are not as ‘profitable’.
But you be you
The thing about free markets is that they do serve everyone, not one size fits all a la govt. Can you imagine a govt grocery store providing the absolutely incredible range of products that Harris-Teeter, Aldi, Whole Foods, & Trader Joe’s offers? The good things that poor people have in the US are primarily provided by the Productive sector: Food, cars, cellphones, computers, etc. Crappy schools, no protection from crime, & toxic “vaccines” are from the Govt sector.
I disagree. Free markets only serve those people/markets that are profitable. When has a private business ever done something just for the good of the community even though it had a negative impact on profits? That is where the public sector is so critical to our standard of living and keeping it achievable for everyone. Not just those that are profitable.
Harris-Teeter offers an amazing array of products because it is profitable in the markets they operate. There is a reason they don’t have stores in lower income markets. Same with education. Who wants to serve the under privileged markets for educating kids in lower income or rural communities where the margins would be far less?
Healey, I can provide you with an excellent example of your govt grocery store comment.
A Soviet pilot had defected to the U.S. and when he was permitted to go out and explore the area where he was being kept, he went into a grocery store and reportedly wandered the aisles dumbfounded by what he saw. He told his escort how this must be a store for the “elites” in America. He couldn’t believe this was typical of stores all over the country. He was offered the chance to pick a location anywhere in the country and he would be immediately flown there to see it was the norm, not the exception. He took the challenge and was completely dumbfounded by what he was finding.
Austin, I understand what you’re saying but because of “government education” the overwhelming number of average Americans would misinterpret your point.
Chris, food deserts exist because of shoplifting, not because they are too elite to be in the area. Walmart on East Cone used to be 24 hours. They realized most of the after hours shoppers were just stealing, so no more 24 hour store. I heard that particular store had the most shoplifting on the east coast, but that’s just rumor. Sure, there won’t be a Fresh Market in a poor neighborhood, but that’s more of a specialty store that specifically catered to the upper class. A basic grocery store, like Harris Teeter, will cater to the neighborhood, but not to thieves. That’s why the Harris Teeters that used to be on the east side are no longer there. Not complicated.
****
Don, I’ve been in Greensboro so long that I remember the Will Dixie on Phillips Avenue. When its closure was announced, a WFMY reporter on scene (just half a mile from their studios) relayed that Winn Dixie said this store was closing because of a disproportionate problem with bad cheques and shoplifiting.
That (white male) reporter was never seen again. I guess his crime was speaking the truth.
While shoplifting can certainly dissuade a business from certain markets you tend to find that it is more profitable to install more security, add police presence and/or inflate prices.
The studies I have read speak more to Economic Disparity (my key point), historical Disinvestment (again because of low profit margins), Redlining (leading to disinvestment in infrastructure), Transportation Access (big issue in rural communities), and Land Use Policies. You can find these studies at USDA’s Economic Research Services (ERS) or the Food Trust.
I live in a rural community where it is a 20-minute drive to the nearest grocery store. We have Dollar General’s that fill the gaps to a minimal degree, but they are more expensive, have a very small selection and lack much in way of healthy food choices. Shoplifting isn’t why we don’t have large grocery stores. Lack of density of customers is the main reason.
But you be you
But you be you.
We are talking apples and oranges. Yes, in rural areas, it is more of a sales density issue. A big store cannot sustain itself if there are not enough customers. In urban environments, my argument holds sway. There used to be Harris Teeters and other grocery stores throughout East Greensboro. Summit and Bessemer, Summit and Cone, Phillips Ave , Golden Gate Shopping Center, etc. Over time, most of them have closed or become more cut rate chains, not because of scary racist reasons like red lining, but due to lack of profits, largely because of theft and loss.
I don’t need “studies”. Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon said himself that the company may end up having to raise prices or even shutter some stores in response to an uptick in shoplifting. Feel free to look it up.
There’s a reason “Government Cheese” was used as an insult when I was growing up. The government does very few things well because of its generic, one size fits all, bulk, bureaucracy methodology. There is a place for government, but it should largely be in the role of setting out minimum standards and some minimal but needed regulations. Then let the private sector actually provide the goods and services. (And no, the government “cheddar cheese” did not taste good.)
I am all for the private sector as long as we have strong government controls to keeps business from using it’s short-term profit goals to harm the environment, take advantage of local labor, risk public health, and/or use unethical market practices to block competition.
The other place for public services is where private industry lacks the profit margins to provide services (such as public education).
But you be you.
Oh boy, here comes Alan bringing Russia into the conversation as if it has any relevance to our discussion of free markets. What a tool. But to play along with the him:
Alan, who in the US is proposing a USSR communist style economic model for the US? No one. The famous example you give was back when communism was the economic model for the USSR which failed miserably. Today Russia uses a mixed economy. This means that their economy is heavily influenced by its political system (an authoritarian regime) meaning they intervein heavily in their major markets but still allow some measure of free market systems managed with a heavy hand. No matter how much you cry and scream like a little angry man….nope, the democrats do not want to copy the current economic system in Russia as that would require an all powerful authoritarian leader.
Hmmmm, is there a party in the US has that wants all power leader than is above the law, that cannot be questioned publicly, and believes he alone knows what’s best for the US? Hmmm? I sure hope not.
But you be you.
And ironically, but you be you.
There is plenty of population density on Phillips Avenue and Summit/Bessemer and Church/Cone. The stores like Harris Teeter and Save a Lot bounced because they could not stay in business with all of the theft. You can use a study to cite all of the talking points but there are enough people with free money to go grocery shopping in any part of Greensboro.
And you want to set economic policy based on rumors of a couple of stores. Ok, not the best policy but you be you.
” Today Russia uses a mixed economy. This means that their economy is heavily influenced by its political system (an authoritarian regime) meaning they intervein heavily in their major markets but still allow some measure of free market systems managed with a heavy hand.”
Can anybody tell me what that sounds like? Where did we hear something like this before, and by who?
Oh yeah…”I am all for the private sector as long as we have strong government controls to keeps business from using it’s short-term profit goals to harm the environment, take advantage of local labor, risk public health, and/or use unethical market practices to block competition.
Anybody care to point out what Chrissy is proposing and supporting?
Excellent essay, Austin! Leftists really do specialize in manipulative language, as your several examples evince. “Leftist” is the right term for them verily, because they are in no way liberal (if that word has any meaning related to freedom or tolerance) or progressive (their collectivist prescriptions are a return to feudalism).
Productive is the right term for the “private” sector. But Parasitic is a touch too inflammatory and imprecise. There is some value in light-handed regulation, policing against violence and fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc. Let’s cogitate on an alternative.
But the term parasitic does not mean that government has no role, does it?
It doesn’t imply anarchy.
I think some people might draw that inference. There is a lot parasitic about government, but not the totality of it. I’m sympathetic to your wanting to use a strong word, but I think “parasitic” might put a lot of people off.
Heck, describing the corporatist economic system of the US as fascist (where corporations and govt are effectively married) is rather accurate, but to most ears it sounds discordant.
How about the Productive sector and the Dependent sector? It gets across that the government sector doesn’t exist without the Productive sector.
That’s good ! I like it.
It was Hayek who coined the terms Productive/Parasitic to describe the two elements of mixed economies, and I agree with that characterization. But I acknowledge that “Parasitic” is a bit pointed.
That’s why I wrote the letter: to assert that the term reflects no ill will towards the people who work in the public sector, or any discredit on their part.
Perhaps I didn’t do a good job, but that was my intention.
Well put Healey
The homosexual community began using “gay” as a self-identifier as early as the 1920s. So it’s a century old usage by gays themselves, not some contemporary leftist scheme.
I’m not sure I get the point. I agree that language is powerful and that it can be effectively used to push agendas in a subliminal way.
I am not sure why you equate the people who serve the public as parasitic. The definition of parasitic essentially means that one organism receives a benefit from another, without providing anything of value in return.
The people who operate the day-to-day of the government are beneficial to the community they serve. I mean who would provide protection to the business that make up the productive sector if not for the “parasites”. I would like to see how the economic growth of business was hampered if people didn’t exist to protect them.
I think your issue is with the politicians, and not the people who make the wheels turn. This is a completely understandable position. For the most they do not provide a comparable return im relation to what the people invest in them.
Again I agree with your initial point, but I think you missed the mark on your characterization of what the parasitic sector is.
Jason, I have to agree with Austin about parasites in our government. Our government federal and local are full of dollar suckers living off or the working taxpayers. A great example is the local post office on Murrow Boulevard, just take a trip by there someday . It usually has 4-5 people behind the counter and if you’re lucky 1 service line will be open Take your lunch because service sucks There is 1 main reason but that’s a conversation for another day.
You’re right that you did not get the point.
I do NOT “equate the people who serve the public as parasitic”.
That was the point.
Haha. I’m not sure you made a point, is kind of my point.
You do in fact equate public servants to parasites, albeit from an economic standpoint. And you are correct that no wealth is generated from the government, but I think you miss my point when you call something parasitic when in fact it is symbiotic.
I am not in favor of government by any means, but I am just trying to understand why you felt the need to write this.
But many parasites are symbiotic. Parasites on whales keep their skin clean, for example, but they’re still parasites.
—-
And I wrote the Letter because a chronic troll here named Chris called me a hypocrite for saying kind things about Yvonne Johnson, who worked in the Public/Parasitic Sector. The Letter illustrates that there is no inconsistency. The Parasitic Sector is indisputably parasitic – IN ECONOMIC TERMS.
PS He hid behind a fake name (“hypocrite”), which he likes to do when attacking people.
My perception of libertarians is that they love government services that benefit them personally (roads, fire, police, etc…) but not the government services they don’t personally require a need for (EPA, CDC, Public Health, Welfare, etc…) given their personal circumstances. And of course, it is easy to be an armchair critic of public institutions (such as public education) by oversimplifying the unique challenges that public education faces (servicing everyone) versus private education (selective servicing). Also, kind of the jam for modern conservative voters suckered by ‘we will eliminate waste speeches’ just to be shocked when Republicans go after SS and Medicare/Medicaid.
Just my 2 cents.
EDITORIALS
From The NY Sun
The Great Pretenders
It will be 50 years on Wednesday since economist Friedrich Hayek’s Nobel Prize lecture, “The Pretense of Knowledge,” our Alex Pollock reminds us. That was the speech in which Hayek decried the “accelerating inflation” of the day — and the bitter irony that it had “been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue.” He concluded: “As a profession we have made a mess of things.”
It was of a piece with Hayek’s role as a contrarian in the economics profession that his “brilliant presentation,” Mr. Pollock notes, “explained the inherent limits of economics and the inevitable failure of trying to make it a predictive mathematical science.” Fifty years on, Hayek’s warning “applies particularly to central banks and their yearning to be economic philosopher-kings,” Mr. Pollock adds. Is this anniversary being marked by the pretenders at the Fed?
After all, nowhere is the gap between the “pretense of knowledge” and practical outcomes wider than at the Fed. This was marked in September by the Wall Street Journal in an editorial headlined “Has the Fed Learned Any Lessons?” Published as the Fed was readying to lower interest rates in the aftermath of “the worst inflation in 40 years,” the editorial noted that “no one should forget the monetary mistakes” that led to the wave of price increases.
The groundwork for that disaster can be traced to the experimental Quantitative Easing program launched by Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2008. Mr. Bernanke scoffed at inflation fears over his runup of the Fed’s balance sheet, pledging that if inflation showed signs of reviving, “we could raise interest rates in 15 minutes, if we have to.” The result was a reckless accumulation of trillions of dollars in assets, accompanied by artificially low interest rates.
Mr. Bernanke’s confidence upon launching QE — a Grade-A “pretense of knowledge” — was striking in light of his, and the Fed’s, failure to foresee the 2008 financial meltdown. “The crisis came from causes not captured by the new Keynesian models used at the Fed,” the Fed chairman later explained by way of an excuse. His colleague and successor at the Fed, Secretary Yellen, similarly shrugged that “I wouldn’t have seen it in the data.”
Mrs. Yellen apologized later “that light bulbs didn’t go off in my head a couple of years before they really did.” Chairman Jay Powell wasn’t as forthright in apologizing for dismissing as “transitory” the early signals of inflation in 2021. The best he could muster was to say that “The one piece of guidance that we gave that I probably wouldn’t do again,” he said, “is we said we wouldn’t lift off unless — until we saw both maximum employment and price stability.”
That convoluted Fed-speak, the Washington Post had to explain, was Mr. Powell’s way of admitting he shouldn’t have waited to raise interest rates. The problem uniting all three Fed chiefs, though, was an overreliance on what proved to be flawed economic models instead of looking to the basis of monetary value — gold. Before the Fed’s QE, the dollar was worth a 775th of an ounce of gold. Four years later it had plummeted to less than a 1,700th.
That was a warning of incipient inflation. Similarly, the Biden inflation wave was accompanied by the dollar plunging even further, to less than a 2,700th of an ounce of gold. “There’s something off,” these columns noted in 2014, about Mr. Bernanke and Mrs. Yellen “blithely talking about how they didn’t see trouble in the data” even as they continued “to ignore the signals in gold.” We reminded that “a search always ends in the last place one looks.”
The refusal to consider gold as a factor in monetary deliberations reflects the failure to heed Hayek’s warning of 50 years ago. Mr. Pollock conveys a hope that institutions like the Fed “have taken to heart Hayek’s lesson that the ‘insuperable limits to knowledge’ ought to teach humility.” Central bankers, in Mr. Pollock’s telling, have reason to be “skeptical about their own forced guessing.” Yet if there is one thing that is in short supply at the Fed, it’s humility.
Brilliant comment.
Not perfectly germane, but brilliant.
Hayek was a genius and could see what others could not. thanks.
The primary failure of Yellen and Powell was believing that the inflation spike was temporary issue only related to the covid supply chain disruptions. They ignored the impact of Trump’s personal and corporate tax cuts and 2 rounds of stimulus spending bills (with very few monitors or control) over stimulating the economy and further increase in the money supply by Biden’s stimulus bill that further expanded the money supply.
Covid was a rather unique circumstance that the NY Sun (as a conservative news biased rag) ignores in its editorial. Rather remarkable that they discuss the 2021 inflation without mentioning all the other factors being considered by the Treasury and the Fed at that time.
But you be you.
In 1913, just as the Federal Reserve was covertly created by a cohort of bankers sequestered in Georgia (USA); President Wilson ushered it thru a sleeping Congress and signed the bill. Just following, the flood of fiat money (Federal Reserve Notes) reduced the buying power of the dollar by more than 1/2, recovering somewhat after the Great War. Just prior to enactment, the official govt price for our gold-backed currency was $20.67 per troy oz. This Friday, it was $2,717/t.o.
The conclusion is: gold is the only real store of value.
…. and Bitcoin, Miller. I got in @ $30K. It’s about $100K right now – and I’m not selling.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet….
I’m reading comments here that bring two names to mind
Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky
And no, I’m not referring to Austin
You really aren’t very bright.
—- So says our Village Idiot Chris, an intellectual giant in his own mind. He’s such a genius that he has to hide his brilliance (and identity) behind fake names – see the comments under the article about Yvonne Johnson.
And his English is the Pidgin English of a rather slow ten year old.
Like all Leftists, Chris is fond of projection..
I find it proofing comments for the likes of the modern conservative a waste of time and energy.
Since you are very slow, let me point out that I am the guy that writes letters to the editor using my full name? I would think a man of your stellar genius and cunning insights would have figured that out by now? So I think it is you that is projecting. Hahahahaha
Some troll here even figured it out and sent a note to my pastor as he hates me so much he looked me up online and found out I am the treasurer of my church. Thankfully my pastor doesn’t think political alliance to an adulterer and convicted felon is a requirement of my faith.
But you be you.
You can be relied upon to be wrong about everything, can’t you?
Are you denying that you use fake names to attack people – because it can be verified very easily.
And you are the only troll in these columns, buddy. A tiresome, petty, posturing prick of a troll.
Go away and get a life.
I do deny using fake names except for the time i used the name “Austin translator’ (or something like that) in good fun where it was very clear it was me.
But I fully understand how conservatives love to make accusations without any basis in fact.
— What, like you accusing Trump of being a rapist?
And it’s strange that whenever I discover you using a fake name, and unmask you, nobody else ever steps up to deny that they are Chris.
Why is that? That’s because there never is another person : it’s you attacking people from behind a fake name.
You’re just a keyboard warrior who’s a craven little creep.
Who is this dumbass Chris guy or girl???
He’s a pontificating poseur who postures publicly for his own pleasure.
Prick, in a word.
Lol, look Who is projecting yet again.
And yet, you are so disliked and unpopular…
I am the centrist leaning left in a far-right comment section. If you think this group is a complete representation of the GC community, you are more of a fool that even I considered you to be.
Just yet another reminder, I comment here not to change your minds but to simply offer a wider perspective on events (hopefully more fact based) so the Rhino doesn’t become an echo chamber of right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories as so many other righting leaning media platforms.
But you be you
It’s not your politics.
It’s your personality.