Nothing Fails Like Success

The successes of the market go unheralded, while the occasional glitches of market coordination (more often than not caused and aggravated by government policies) are portrayed as failures justifying yet more government intervention, with the problems caused by that action also blamed on the market.

Low Prices

Another success of market economies is the steady reduction in the real prices of ever-higher-quality goods and services resulting from the relentless struggle of suppliers for increased market share and profits, by reducing production costs and passing those efficiencies on to consumers in the form of ever-lower prices. Consumers obviously like lower prices, and one would think that the market’s success at providing them would be widely appreciated. But this is not quite true. If appreciation is measured by shopping behavior, then it is clear that low prices are appreciated in the marketplace. This appreciation does not always carry over, however, into the realm of public opinion.

For example, Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in America because of its “everyday low prices,” serving tens of millions of customers every week. But this popularity is not reflected in public opinion polls. A national poll conducted in 2005 by the firm Zogby International found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement “Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost.” The criticism of Wal-Mart focuses on the claims that it (1) exploits its employees by paying them low wages with meager fringe benefits, and (2) harms communities by bankrupting local businesses and destroying the jobs they provided. These criticisms are part of a long history of successful firms being criticized by those wanting political protection against the wealth-creating discipline of the marketplace.

Like Wal-Mart, many successful companies have paid, and continue to pay, rather low wages because they have found ways to employ low-skill workers more productively and at higher pay than other employers. In the case of Wal-Mart, this is reflected in the fact that every time it opens a new store, there are far more job applicants than available jobs. This is good news for workers and consumers, with the former earning higher pay than in their best alternatives and the latter ­receiving better goods and services at lower prices. Of course, all successful companies put some competitors out of business and ­destroy the jobs they provided. But this is the market discipline that is constantly redirecting resources, including labor, out of employments where they produce less value and into employments where they produce more. Unfortunately, criticism that successful firms create low-paying jobs and cause bankruptcy and layoffs resonate with the public because seeing real and imaginary costs associated with market discipline is much easier than understanding how that discipline is essential for increasing prosperity. And public concern over the “high moral and economic cost” of low prices, along with the political influence of organized interests that work to foster and inflame that concern, leads to policies that reduce market discipline and put a drag on economic growth.

In the case of political opposition to successful retailers that lower prices, the effect has been primarily to delay their expansion. But there are more costly examples of politicians and their special-interest clients claiming that the market’s success at lowering prices is a problem requiring a government solution that reduces our freedom and prosperity. Political restrictions are imposed on our freedom to buy low-priced foreign goods because of the belief that free markets in those goods drive down American wages and destroy American jobs. Price-support programs keep ­agricultural prices artificially high because many are convinced that free markets in agricultural goods would destroy the family farm and threaten a stable food supply. And antitrust suits are brought against efficient firms that lower prices because it is widely thought that such firms will bankrupt their competition and become monopolies.


More at:

From Scotland To America: Passing The Torch Of Freedom

For over 1,000 years the brave Scottish people reasoned, prayed, and fought for the cause of liberty. The spirit of bravehearts like William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and John Knox still runs deep in the American soul. To understand our great hope for recovering freedom and prosperity in America today, it is vital to understand the Scottish fight for liberty.

As the 14th century neared, the English King Edward “Long Shanks” was brutally tyrannizing the Scots and men like William Wallace. Long Shank’s hyper-taxation, land theft, and wholesale murder without trial broke all the rules of Common Law and Magna Carta (the heart of the English constitution). He even passed laws giving his nobles prima nocta (or first rights of nobles to rape Scottish women on the day of their weddings).

After his wife was brutally ravaged and killed by the English, William Wallace raised a citizen army of Scots to throw off English oppression. He became Scotland’s greatest patriot by inspiring his men to fight for liberty based upon their God-given rights guaranteed in Magna Carta and Common Law, all rights derived from the Bible. Wallace was eventually defeated and martyred. But in 1314, Robert the Bruce, King of the Scots, picked up the torch of freedom. He defeated the English oppressors at the Battle of Bannockburn, obtaining liberty in Scotland for 200 years.

Soon after, the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath. This was the first of their biblically based freedom documents. Their words cry out to us through the ages and inspire millions even today. “For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

But over the next 200 years, the government abuse under the so-called “divine right” of kings, nearly wiped out freedom once again. The kings of England were burning Scotland’s most sincere believers in the streets.

Then, gloriously, in the 16th century, the original document of freedom, the Bible, was unleashed in the language of the people in Scotland. In 1558, after centuries of semi-pagan barbarity, the Scottish people were led to the Savior and His Word by a former bodyguard, galley slave, and then powerful preacher, John Knox. With their new biblical understanding, they were the first nation to put limits on the power of government (checks and balances). Within a decade the Scots succeeded in dethroning their tyrannical queen.

The struggle for liberty against government oppression would go on for another century. But a number of precious freedom documents were created during this time of trial in Scotland.

When the English Stuart Kings, James, and Charles, attempted to destroy true biblical faith, the Scots met in the Greyfriar’s church yard and signed their National Covenant of 1638. Many Scots signed the document in their own blood, swearing never to compromise their faith or that of their children.

The Christian Scots were declaring to the world that their rights came from God, not from the king (or any government leader, court or legislature). Therefore, a ruler, cannot force his arbitrary laws upon the people and expect them to passively follow.

To understand this bold National Covenant we must realize that these Scottish men in kilts were not just playing war games. They did not promote anarchy, as have most modern revolutions up to our time. They were biblically and intellectually prepared to stand against oppression, even unto death, by men like the eminent Professor Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford’s book, Lex Rex, written in 1644, stands even today as the premier defense of the biblical rights and responsibilities of people to resist tyranny (out of control government) and to restore the rule of law (God’s law).


More at: