Skip to main content

Let Us Work! The Futility of “Stimulus” to Counteract Foolish Covid-19 Shutdown Orders

When was the last time you ate money? When did you last wear it? Ever shelter under it during a storm? Fact is, money is only useful for purchasing the things we need. That’s the problem with yet more talk of a federal government “stimulus” in the face of state and local government-imposed economic disruption in response to Covid-19. Government stimulus simply means government is putting money in people’s pockets so we can buy things. But each and every thing we eat, use, and consume in our daily lives must be produced. That means “stimulus” is, at best, a temporary delusion. Give people money to spend that they don’t work for, sooner or later, there’s nothing left for them to spend that money on. Or, to rephrase Margaret Thatcher, “You eventually run out of other people’s stuff to buy.”


Producing is not fun to most people, for the simple reason that producing means work. Only a wonderfully blessed minority so love what they do for a living that they truly feel like they do not work to earn a living. Most look forward to the weekend and retire as soon as they feel like they can afford it. Producing – work – is therefore pretty easy to discourage. Cut somebody’s pay, even a little bit, and their productivity likely suffers considerably. Manage incompetently, and workers take advantage. Manage through threats and arbitrary practices, and people quit or passively resist work assigned by doing a poor job.


When it comes to production – the true source of ALL our prosperity – because most people don’t view it as fun, incentives critically matter. Not surprisingly, many workers rationally evaluated the situation and chose to take advantage of widespread confusion and overwhelming workloads in state employment agencies to quit their jobs, (fraudulently) apply for unemployment, take stimulus checks, and have a high time at everybody else’s expense.


Once state and local governments shut down the nation by imposing lockdowns on their constituencies and the federal government had no legal power to reverse these actions, it’s easy enough to see the quandary the federal government was in. No doubt, it seemed there was little to do other than attempt to spend the nation’s way to economic stability, and President Trump has made a fair point that many who were unemployed due to shutdowns had no choice in the situation. The problem, though, is that the path to prosperity is not through spending. It’s through production.


By the way, explaining this absolute truism and understanding how best to harness mankind’s productive instincts for prosperity was the real purpose behind Adam Smith’s 1776 tome, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” During Smith’s time, the prevailing thinking was that a nation’s wealth was directly related to how much gold it possessed. Of course, gold was the chief money of the day, and the truth is that gold’s inherent usefulness is only slightly less limited than that of paper money. The two ways nations gained gold were by conquering and by running large trade surpluses, often at the expense of colonies. This is the mercantilist system against which the American Colonies rebelled, declaring their independence, coincidentally, the same year Smith’s book was published.


Smith’s chief insights were that a nation’s true wealth lay in its productive capacity, and that a nation’s productive capacity was best built largely through free markets, not by government diktat, tax and subsidy incentives, or through regulation. A nation’s productive capacity includes its investment in technology, machinery, and infrastructure. Free markets, even in Smith’s mind, would not be entirely free of government rules, but he advocated they operate as freely as possible, for the sake of building productive wealth that would benefit everyone, whether rich or poor.


And Smith has been proven absolutely correct, although some economists bought into the ideas of John Maynard Keynes about the time of the Great Depression, which emphasized spending. Indeed, people with money to spend are an incentive for producers to produce EXCEPT when the government hands out money to everybody for doing nothing. We are all producers; all producers are people; all people are incentivized NOT to produce when money is handed to them for nothing. It’s that simple.


Federal stimulus payments made with money practically manufactured out of thin air is no way to ensure the nation’s prosperity. The only way to ensure prosperity is to allow people to work – to produce – and that means local and state government officials need to get out of the way and let us all do just that. Perhaps, if Covid-19 presented the kind of threat the hysterical press has proclaimed it to be, it would be different. Facts, however, belie the hysteria. And due to so many officials’ foolish responses, we are undoubtedly being made poorer for it, regardless of what a stock market pumped up by Fed money otherwise says.


Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?

1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal.   With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant.   Can a quarantine be ordered?   Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered? Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior?   Can businesses be ordered to close? Can state governments order these measures? Can local governments order these measures? My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help preve...

More on Why Oklahoma Should Have Already Fully Opened

Governor Stitt has declared that some businesses can open on Friday. By May 1, all enterprises in the state will be able to operate more or less normally. Eventually, at some unspecified date, Oklahoma will be fully operating again. But the question remains, and must be asked, “Was the shutdown and extreme social distancing even necessary?” For several reasons, the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No.” Let’s start with this little gem from a blog by an Oklahoma State University academic. “Harvard University epidemiologists determined that continuing extreme social distancing measures into the summer months could actually result in more COVID-19 deaths than a ‘do nothing from the beginning’ alternative.” Now, it might sound like this only confirms the decision to open up now and not extend the shutdown into the summer. But in fact, the Harvard study has a lot more to say about how this epidemic has been handled than might immediately be obvious. The Harvard study recom...

COVID-19 Exposes TSET’s Uselessness: Let’s Get Rid of It

After more than a month of COVID-19 house arrest , Oklahoma is reopening. However, the government-created economic disaster that shutdown orders have caused will be studied by epidemiologists, economists, and other social scientists for decades to come. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences as they occur, everything from a lack of toilet paper on store shelves (hopefully, that’s over) and hair that’s grown too long to what will undoubtedly be a host of bankruptcies. In the meantime, there is a timely question that truly ought to be answered in Oklahoma. Where has TSET (Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust) been in this time of crisis? Recall that TSET was created as a quasi-independent government by constitutional amendment as part of the 46-state tobacco settlement wherein tobacco companies agreed to pay states as reimbursement for the Medicaid costs of treating tobacco users for tobacco-induced illnesses. Instead of using the money to reduce taxes for Oklahom...

What if Legislators Were Licensed? Well, Just to Make a Point...

1889 Institute, as a general matter, objects to occupational licensing. We have written about it more than any other subject. The scant benefits simply do not outweigh the enormous costs to consumers and entrepreneurs, and  the  burdens that disproportionately impact the poor.   It must be noted that the remainder of this post is a work of satire. This should be obvious to anyone who has read even one of our papers, but each of the proposals below has an analogous provision in Oklahoma licensing laws. To those supportive of government-created cartels, these proposals might sound almost reasonable.  A material threat to the public safety and welfare has for too long gone entirely unregulated, unrestrained and unchecked. This menace has the power to corrode not only mere industries, but to corrupt the entire state economy. It’s no overstatement to say that the practitioners of this perilous profession hold the power to destroy democracy as we know it. After a...