Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Donald Boudreaux‏. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Donald Boudreaux‏. Mostrar todas las entradas

Beware some economic commentary by Donald Boudreaux‏

Pittsburgh Review.


Economists have failed to communicate the basic insights of economics to the general public. So it’s unsurprising that public understanding in the 21st century of elementary truths of the economy is on par with public understanding in the ninth century of elementary truths of the solar system.

A reason for this failure is that most economists have little desire to talk about economics to non-economists. There are exceptions. Milton Friedman regularly explained the economic effects of the likes of inflation and rent control in language that was crystal clear and engaging. But these exceptions are rare.

Worse, a few of these exceptions make matters worse. Some economists who are notable for communicating with the public reinforce, rather than correct, the public’s economic misunderstanding.

No economic fallacy is as widespread as the public’s sense that the economy suffers when citizens buy goods and services from foreigners. What the non-economist sees is Americans spending dollars abroad rather than in the USA. The non-economist then concludes that American jobs are “destroyed.”


All dollars that Americans spend on imports return to America no less certainly than if Americans had not bought imports at all. And as compared to a situation in which government obstructs Americans’ trade with foreigners, these dollars return with greater positive effect on the U.S. economy. The reason is that trade allows Americans to buy from abroad those products that foreigners offer to sell to us at prices lower than it would cost us to make those things ourselves.Economists have long understood and celebrated the win-win benefits of trade. Yet popular economist-pundit Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, routinely fuels the public’s misunderstanding on this front.

Consider, for example, this recent claim by Morici: “(T)oo many of those dollars were spent on imports that did not return to buy U.S. exports — the gap between new imports and new exports was lost demand for U.S. goods and services.”

He’s talking nonsense.

Dollars that foreigners don’t spend on U.S. exports are emphatically not “lost demand for U.S. goods and services.” Instead, these dollars are invested in the U.S. And being invested in the U.S., they create demand for U.S. goods and services no less than if they were spent to buy U.S. exports.

The dollars the Chinese invest in U.S. Treasuries become demand for U.S. goods and services — demand expressed by Uncle Sam or by private citizens who sell bonds to China and who then spend in America the dollars they earn on those sales. Likewise, the dollars the Swedish furniture retailer Ikea invests in building stores in America become demand for U.S. goods and services — demand for the likes of construction materials and construction workers in America.

That Morici does not understand this simple reality means that his economic punditry confuses, rather than enlightens, the public. His is a species of economic commentary best ignored.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.


I Composed this Letter on My MacBook Pro While Sipping Gourmet Coffee from Guatemala by Don Boudreaux

Cafe Hayek.


Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Edward Sage ridicules Charles Koch’s claim – from Mr. Koch’s essay ”Corporate Cronyism Harms America” (Sept. 10) - that “the role of business is to provide products and services that make people’s lives better.” Mr. Sage asks in response: “Since when? This sounds much more like a liberal take on the role of government. As a liberal I’d be over the moon if companies cared primarily about making lives better. Instead, this only happens if it’s the best way to make money” (Letters, Sept. 13).
Mr. Sage uses the word “only” to imply that it’s a mere occasional happenstance that the best way for businesses to make money is to supply goods and services that improve people’s lives. But because no private business (without special privileges granted by government) can force any consumer to buy its products – and because no private business (without special privileges granted by government) can prevent other businesses from competing for consumers’ dollars – no private business (without special privileges granted by government) can survive unless it supplies “products and services that make people’s lives better” (as judged by consumers themselves, of course, rather than by Mr. Sage and his fellow “liberals”).
Businesses do sometimes err. Consumers do sometimes err. But for Mr. Sage not to see that in private markets the profit motive generally drives businesses to seek ceaselessly and frantically for ways to supply outputs that improve people’s lives is for him to be blind to one of the most remarkable and transformative facts of the past two centuries.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Deficit spending no free lunch by Don Boudreaux

Pittsburgh Tribune Review.


One of the most useful catchphrases in economics is “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” — or “TANSTAAFL.”

This phrase highlights the fact that using resources to produce one good or service means that society gives up some other goods and services that could have been — but now won’t be — produced with those same resources.

In short, everything has a cost.

Of course, that a good or service has a cost doesn’t mean that that good or service is not worthwhile to produce. Constructing my house was costly. It consumed lots of labor and material. But I’m happy to pay my mortgage because the benefit to me of living in my house exceeds the cost to me of compensating the many suppliers who helped to build it.

Whether some output is worthwhile or not, though, it’s important always to recognize that it has a cost — to recognize that nothing is free.

Unfortunately, when unemployment is high, many people assume that TANSTAAFL doesn’t apply.
It’s common during these times to suppose that more roads and bridges and corn and houses and widgets can be built costlessly. “After all” (the reasoning goes), “many resources are currently unemployed, so we sacrifice nothing by finding ways to employ these resources to produce more stuff.”

It’s a short leap from this belief to the conclusion that government deficit spending in times of high unemployment is costless. If government borrows money to hire unemployed workers to build a new aircraft carrier, it appears that nothing is sacrificed. We seem to get additional guns without having to sacrifice any butter.

Proponents of deficit spending insist that failure to spend during slumps is failure to take advantage of the opportunity to get goods and services for free.

Many problems plague this case for deficit spending. One is that higher-than-average unemployment does not turn TANSTAAFL into TISATAAFL (“There is such thing as a free lunch”).

Everyone recognizes that even an economy at full employment has some unemployed workers and other resources. The “natural” rate of unemployment in the U.S. is considered to be just over 5 percent. That is, if America’s unemployment rate were 5 percent, economists would call that “full employment.” All would then agree that increased spending to build a new aircraft carrier would divert resources from other uses — building houses, designing new word-processing software, supplying more butter.

So why suppose that matters are significantly different with unemployment at 8.1 percent (the August rate)? Even with today’s high unemployment, well over 90 percent of workers remain employed.

It’s illegitimate to assume that an unemployment rate a mere 3 percentage points higher than “full” means that we have such a superabundance of idle resources that increased production of goods and services is no longer costly.

As I’ll explain in my next column, today’s relatively high unemployment neither enables us to produce for free nor implies that the foundational truths of economics are inapplicable during recessions.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.


Countless Wonders. Free Markets Let Entrepreneurs Help Everyone

by Donald Boudreaux.

On a recent drive through an affluent San Francisco neighborhood boasting truly spectacular homes, I did what almost every ordinary person does in such circumstances: I wondered to myself, “What can I do to earn enough money to be able to afford such a home?” My thinking continued: “To earn such wealth requires that I produce a product that lots of people value more than it would cost me to produce. Okay! Good! I’ve identified the general formula. Now all I need to do is to think of a product for which people will pay a price higher than my cost of production.”
“What can I produce? . . . What can I produce? . . . What creative idea can I come up with that will earn me a bundle? . . . What can I produce?.’.. Think, Don: think, think, THINK!”
Melancholy engulfed me as I drew a blank—the same embarrassing blank that I drew on each of the thousand-and-one previous occasions when I tried to think of a new product or service that consumers would value.
Fact is, I possess absolutely no such entrepreneurial creativity. None. Zippola.
And yet, despite my mind’s barrenness on this front, how fortunate I am! How amazingly, breathtakingly fortunate—and wealthy—I am!
My good fortune is that I live in a society in which I benefit immensely and directly from other people’s creative ideas-no one of which I would have dreamed up in several lifetimes. The distinguishing feature of a depoliticized free-market economy is that it not only inspires creative people to create, but it also inspires these creative people to create things and processes that benefit even me and others who are hopelessly non-creative.
Here’s what I mean. I’m writing these words somewhere over the State of Utah as I hurtle toward New York City at a speed of 600 miles per hour. Less than a foot from my arm the air temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. And yet I’m cozy, comfortable, and safe as I sip complimentary gourmet coffee. Two hours ago I was in California; three hours from now I’ll be in New York. My thoughts are being recorded (with help from my fingers) on a laptop computer that has more computer power than was on Apollo 11. I can check my e-mail messages by plugging my laptop into the telephone nestled in the seat in front of me.
Each of these wonders—and they are wonders!—is made possible by countless creative ideas of people whom I don’t know and who don’t know me. I am responsible for none of the ideas that enable me to write on a computer as I fly safely across the continent. But here I am, the happy beneficiary of these astonishing creations.
What’s more, I’m an ordinary American. I’m not rich by modern American standards. But so what? In truth, I’m astoundingly wealthy. I (like nearly all other Americans) can acquire these luxuries in exchange for just a tiny fraction of my work time.
Let’s tally up the cost to me, today, of the luxuries that I identify above. The round-trip coach airfare is $338. My new laptop, complete with modem and all of the requisite software for word processing and for e-mailing, costs a total of $2,000. Because I’ll probably keep this laptop for at least two years, the daily cost to me of this laptop is no more than $2.74 (which is $2,000 divided by the 730 days that there are in two full years). To check my e-mail will cost me about $35 in telephone charges—a figure calculated on the assumption that I’ll be on the air-phone for ten minutes (which is far more connect time than I’ll probably need).
So what do we have? All told, it costs me a paltry $375.74 to fly from New York to California and back and to write this column en route and to check my e-mail. $375.74—that’s all! A mere $375.74 is all that I paid to do what twenty years ago no one at all could do, and what only four or five years ago only the wealthiest of the wealthy could do.
Yet today laptop computing on a jetliner is so common in Western society that we take it for granted. My fellow passengers are no more astonished to see me typing on my laptop than they would be to spot a pigeon in Central Park.
The 1997 annual report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is entitled Time Well Spent: The Declining Real Cost of Living in America. I encourage you to read this remarkable document. (Note: The Dallas Fed is something of a renegade among government agencies. Its leadership and staff of economists rank among the most free-market-oriented group of scholars in America today.) The report’s authors—W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm—document how the real cost of living in America has fallen dramatically over the past century, and how it continues to fall. Cox and Alm measure cost of living by using work time—the amount of time the typical American worker must labor to purchase various goods and services.
Almost any good or service you can name costs less work time today than it cost just a few years ago. For example, in 1984 the typical American worker had to work 435 hours to purchase a personal computer. Today, a vastly more powerful computer is available for only 76 hours of work by the typical American worker. A cell phone in 1984 cost 456 hours of the typical American’s work time. A much better cell phone today costs a mere nine hours.
Of course, many goods and services that we today take for granted could ten years ago be purchased at no price whatsoever—such as checking e-mail from a commercial jetliner.
The marvels to which we each have daily access are the product of millions of creative minds figuring out how better to please consumers—by producing new or improved products and by reducing the costs of producing existing products. Many of these creative people earn (and deserve) millions of dollars; some earn (and deserve) billions of dollars; most earn handsome but not princely sums. Everyone, however, in industrial society profits greatly from every market entrepreneur’s creativity.
I need not lament that I, personally, have no creative, productive ideas. I have the great good fortune to live in a society that encourages truly creative people to share the fruits of their creativity with me. My blessings are literally too great to count.
Donald J. Boudreaux

Prosperity and temperature

by Donald Boudreaux.


Mr. Dave Ross
KIRO-FM
Seattle, WA
Dear Mr. Ross:
In your segment “What happened to global warming being a hoax?” – aired during today’s 1pm hour on Washington, DC’s, WTOP radio – you played a clip of U.C.-Berkeley scientist Richard Muller saying that “all of this warming over the last 250, 260 years has been caused by green house gases emitted by humans.”
Being no physical scientist myself, I accept Mr. Muller’s claim.  But contrary to most people’s reaction to this news, my reaction is “What a deal!”
In exchange for slightly warmer global temperatures, humanity gets off-the-charts benefits never before enjoyed by ordinary men and women – benefits that began to flow only 250, 260 years ago.  In industrialized countries, these benefits include a near-tripling of life-expectancy; a growth in average real per-capita income to a level at least 30 times higher than it was a mere three centuries ago; an end to famine and plagues; abolition of the multi-millennial-old institution of slavery; widespread literacy; and an unprecedented expansion in women’s rights and opportunities – all these wonders, and more, from bourgeois commerce and industry powered in part by fossil fuels.  Has humanity ever gotten so much at such a puny price?
Asked differently, who among us would choose to exchange modernity and its stupendous prosperity for whatever reduction in global temperature we’d enjoy had all the greenhouse gasses emitted over the past 250, 260 years never been released?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030
P.S. None of the above suggests that, at the margin, reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t desirable.  They might or might not be, depending on the attendant costs and benefits.  But historical perspective – which is utterly lacking amidst popular and media commentary on this question – is necessary.  If the choice were between, on the one hand, all the commerce and industry and its attendant greenhouse-gas emissions over the past 250, 260 years, and, on the other hand, none of that industry and (hence) no industry-released greenhouse gasses over the past 250, 260 years, how many rational people would choose the latter?

Spending & saving

by Donald Boudreaux‏.



No economic instinct runs more deeply than the instinct about the alleged supremacy of spending. It screams: “Buying more output from existing producers is key to economic health! The more spent, the better!” It’s this instinct that makes reports on “consumer confidence” seem relevant. More “confident” consumers mean more freely spending consumers, and more freely spending consumers mean a healthier economy. Q.E.D — or so our instinct tells us.
This instinct is old. It’s also fallacious. Like all long-lived fallacies, however, a tiny kernel of truth looms within it. That kernel is the businessperson’s correct understanding that higher demand for his output is indeed good for him and his suppliers (including his workers).
From this truth, the typical businessperson concludes that higher demand for the output of all existing firms — or higher demand at least for the outputs of those firms that today sell less than they sold yesterday — is the principal cause of economic vigor.
Unsurprisingly, this fallacy leads to disparagement of savings. Every dollar that you save is a dollar that you don’t spend buying bread from your local baker or beer from your local pub. The baker and bartender see that you’d spend more if you saved less. They see — perhaps accurately — that their revenues would rise if you saved less.
But what goes unseen is all-important.
Simplifying only a tad, you have two chief reasons for savings. First, you want to increase your ability to consume tomorrow. Second, you want to protect your ability to consume — your “assets,” broadly speaking — from being unduly depleted tomorrow.
Although these motives overlap each other, the first might be thought of as evidence of optimism, while the second is evidence of pessimism.
If you’re optimistic, you reduce consumption today to invest in projects that, hopefully, will turn a profit and enable you to consume more tomorrow. You might invest conservatively (say, in mutual funds) or entrepreneurially (say, by opening your own business). A necessary condition for making such investments is reasonable confidence that tax rates and regulations will not be so burdensome as to devour your hoped-for gains.
An absence of confidence about tax rates and regulatory burdens remaining reasonable, though, sparks the second, very different, motive for saving: fear of the future. Fearful of the future, you sock money away. You don’t commit your money to expanding existing enterprises or to creating new ones. Government policy renders such investment imprudent. You simply conserve your spending power.
Saving of the first sort enlarges the economy’s stock of capital. The pie grows. Saving of the second sort diminishes the economy’s stock of capital. The pie shrinks.
In both cases, saving nevertheless hurts some existing businesses. If you reduce your spending at the pub in order to save to open your own business, your bartender is harmed. But clearly your saving in this case is economically beneficial.
If, however, you reduce your spending at the pub because you become more anxious about the state of the economy, your bartender suffers no less than if you saved more to open your own firm.
It’s tempting to conclude that saving of the second sort is undesirable. But resist that temptation. Saving driven by such pessimism is merely a symptom of bad policies. To blame such savings for an economic slump — or to endorse government spending as a helpful device to make up for this saving — is to miss the real culprit: unwise and imprudent policies that discourage commerce and industry.

Economics, money & wealth

by Donald Boudreaux.



We economists get a lot of attention at cocktail parties.
We do so by explaining that more sex can lead to safer sex, by complaining that the "drug war" makes drug use more dangerous, by noting that mandated fuel-economy standards cause more highway fatalities and, generally, by pointing out the many ways in which basic economic reasoning produces startling counterintuitive realities.
Startling counterintuitive conclusions, when clearly explained, reveal the power of the economic way of thinking. Economics is to our understanding of society what Copernican astronomy is to our understanding of the cosmos -- obvious first impressions are often flat wrong.
Just as our untutored senses tell us that a still Earth is orbited by a revolving sun ("It's obvious!"), our senses tell us that minimum-wage legislation makes poor workers richer, that foreign aid to poor countries makes people in poor countries richer and that prohibitions on price-gouging make consumers richer.
In all of these cases, though, our untutored senses are spectacularly misleading.
And the chief reason why our senses so often mislead us about economic matters is that, when untutored in economics, we focus excessively on money and monetary prices. A good economist, in contrast, understands that money and prices often tell only part of the story.
Take foreign aid. If wealth were truly and mainly money, then governments of rich nations could easily make citizens of poor nations richer simply by giving more money to poor nations.
If wealth is money and money is wealth, then it's easy to overlook questions of how to produce the actual goods and services that people use money to buy. The typical American knows that if someone gave him an extra $10 million, he would indeed be much richer. He'd imagine himself going to a Mercedes dealership and driving away in a new sedan to the toniest neighborhood in town to buy a luxurious mansion that he would then fill with state-of-the-art appliances and consumer electronics.
For the typical American, more dollars does indeed mean more wealth.
But this typical American seldom pauses to ask just why it is that other people are willing to turn over to him high-performance automobiles and beautiful mansions in exchange for nothing more than paper -- for nothing more than lots of monochrome-green portraits of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and other dead statesmen from America's past.
Suppliers can sell for money only that which exists to be sold. So automobiles, houses, consumer electronics (and food, furniture and formal education; the list goes on and on) must first be produced in order to be sold and produced in great abundance in order to be enjoyed by the masses.
The mass production that is a hallmark of modern market economies is made possible not chiefly by money but by culture and institutions.
Security of property rights, along with a reasonably respected rule of law and toleration of economic change, form the nonmonetary foundations of our prosperity. Nations without this foundation will never prosper, regardless of how much financial aid is tossed on them.
Indeed, money plays a vital economic role. But wealth is not money (it's what money can buy) and wealth is not generated by money (it's generated by sound institutions and culture).
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

Imagine That

Donald Boudreaux‏.



Only human beings have imagination—or so I imagine. Dogs and cats have no imagination; nor do snails or streams; nor do robots or smart phones.
The only evidence I can offer for the truth of my claim is that we don’t observe other creatures or things becoming. We don’t observe Rover or Secretariat seeking to transform their existences in any fundamental way. Humans, however, do imagine futures different from today, and we seek to make these different futures real.
This fact means that society isn’t a mechanism like a wristwatch or a microwave oven. The human economy is not a system infused with tight and unfailingly predictable reaction functions. Analogizing the economy to such a machine might have its benefits, but it also has its costs. And in the study of economics those costs have come to swamp the benefits.
I submit that human imagination and the open-endedness that such imagination imparts to the economy are relevant aspects of reality that economists largely and regrettably have too long ignored. Consider, for example, the economics of natural resources.
The very term “natural resources” sneaks in an assumption about the manner in which humankind relates to the natural environment, an assumption that hides the role of imagination by suggesting that we are much more passive and reactive than we really are.
To describe a resource as “natural” is to imply that it has value to human beings—that it is useful—simply by its nature, simply by its existence. Therefore, with the likes of land, petroleum, and titanium being bestowed on us by nature, our job is merely to gather them up and use them in economically efficient ways.
While the role of entrepreneurial imagination is (sometimes) recognized in devising new products that might be made with natural resources, such imagination is almost never recognized in the creation of the natural resources themselves. But in fact no substance is a truly natural resource. Each thing that we call a “natural resource” is something whose “resourceness” was created by human imagination.
The black smelly stuff that (I imagine) bubbled up into the creek waters of western Pennsylvania back in 1500 BC—and 1500 AD—likely was more of a nuisance than a resource to the people then living there. Petroleum’s “resourceness” required human imagination—someone to say to himself or herself, “Hey, what if I do this with that stuff?” or “I wonder if I can make that stuff perform this task for me.”
To impart “resourceness” to oil required myriad imaginations—imagining not only what useful outputs the viscous, malodorous stuff can be used to make, but imagining also how to get it out of the creeks and ground and deep oceans. The number of imaginings that had to happen to make oil a “natural” resource is staggering.
While any one of these imaginings might not have altered human existence in any noticeable way, the full panoply of them certainly did do so.
Imaginings such as these are utterly foundational to human society. And when we recognize them for what they are, it becomes clear that in reality resources are never “given;” knowledge is never “given;” technology is never “given;” human wants and the ways in which we interpret and react to our reality are never “given.”
The Reverend Malthus committed the most infamous case of assuming to be given what human imagination has since demonstrated should not be so assumed. Malthus failed—as today’s Malthusians continue to fail—to appreciate the reality and the economic productivity of human imagination.
The primacy of human imagination means that resources are not defined strictly by volume, weight, mass, wave frequency, location on the periodic table, or any other category that features prominently in books on physics or engineering. Imagination adds another dimension—a uniquely economic dimension—to any physical “things” that might be regarded as resources.
Only human imagination reveals—or creates—economically central aspects of resources: how resources might be used to satisfy our desires; how they might be located, extracted, stored, processed, recycled; and how they might be made to serve purposes performed by different resources.
None of these indispensable aspects of resources is exclusively, or even chiefly, a function of their physical properties. Human imagination must be mixed with them.
Imagination is not, of course, magic pixie dust that, when sprinkled on a lump of inert physical stuff, transforms it into whatever the human heart desires. The specifics of our physical world do matter. No amount of imagination is likely, for example, to turn cow manure into fine bourbon, or to create life everlasting for us mortal beings.
But . . . But . . . I pause here to confess to you how surprisingly difficult it was to write the previous paragraph—how challenging it was to list plausible examples of the highly implausible. I first wrote, “No amount of imagination will turn water into wine. That achievement really would be a miracle of biblical proportions!” But then I thought, “Why not turn water into wine? Is that prospect truly so unthinkable?”
Knowing of human imagination’s remarkable track record, who can dismiss the prospect that one day some imaginative person (or, more likely, a series of imaginative people) will, after much experimentation, create, say, a powder mix that turns ordinary tap water into a luscious Bordeaux-style wine?
If I—a middle-class American sitting in my office in Fairfax, Virginia—can pull from my pocket a little slab, press a few buttons in a certain sequence, and then video-chat in real time with a friend in New Orleans or Nairobi or, pressing yet another sequence of buttons, download into my little slab a recording of a musical performance from 50 years ago by four lads from Liverpool, what basis have I, or anyone else, to suggest that an inexpensive powder that turns water into wine is a laughable impossibility?
I can easily imagine such a thing really happening, although I personally haven’t an imagination remotely powerful enough ever to enable me to imagine just how to make such an achievement a reality. What I do have—what we all have—is the great good fortune to live in a society that boasts people with such fertile imaginations and that motivates them to unleash their imaginations in ways that allow even those of us without imaginations so fertile to enjoy the fruits of productive, creative imagination.
Human imagination and creativity are, as the late Julian Simon taught, the ultimate resource.

Austrian Capital Theory: Why It Matters

Don Boudreaux. 



With the resurgence of Keynesian economic policy as a response to the current crisis, echoes of past debates are being heard—in particular the debate from the 1930s between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. Keynes talked about the “capital stock” of the economy. He argued that by stimulating spending on outputs (consumption goods and services), one can increase productive investment to meet that spending, thus adding to the capital stock and increasing employment.
Hayek accused Keynes of insufficient attention to the nature of capital in production. (By “capital” I mean the physical production structure of the economy, including machinery, buildings, raw materials, and human capital—skills). Hayek pointed out that capital investment does not simply add to production in a general way but rather is embodied in concrete capital items. That is, the productive capital of the economy is not simply an amorphous “stock” of generalized production power; it is an intricate structure of specific interrelated complementary components. Stimulating spending and investment, then, amounts to stimulating specific sections and components of this intricate structure.
The “shape” of production is changed by stimulatory activist spending. And given that in a world of scarcity productive resources are not free, this change comes at the expense of productive effort elsewhere. The pattern of production thus gets out of sync with the pattern of consumption, and eventually this must lead to a collapse. Productive sectors, like dot-com startups or residential housing, become “overbought” (while other sectors develop less), and eventually a “correction” must occur. Add this distortion to the fact that the original stimulus must somehow eventually be paid for, and we have a predictable bust.
These Hayekian criticisms are once again relevant. It is necessary therefore to return to the nature of capital to clarify the issues. Hayek was working from foundations that were developed by his intellectual forebears in the Austrian school of economics. Specifically, it is the Austrian theory of capital that is relevant, and we should begin with that.

The Austrian Theory

The best known Austrian capital theorist was Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, though his teacher Carl Menger is the one who got the ball rolling, providing the central idea that Böhm-Bawerk elaborated. Böhm-Bawerk produced three volumes dedicated to the study of capital and interest, making the Austrian theory of capital his best-known theoretical contribution. He provided a detailed account of the fundamentals of capitalistic production. Later contributors include Hayek, Ludwig Lachmann, and Israel Kirzner. They added to and enriched Böhm-Bawerk’s account in crucial ways. The legacy we now have is a rich tapestry that accords amazingly well with the nature of production in the digital information age. Some current contributors along these lines include Peter Klein, Nicolai Foss, Howard Baetjer, and me.
The Austrians emphasize that production takes time: The more indirect it is, the more “time” it takes. Production today is much more “roundabout” (Böhm-Bawerk’s term) than older, more rudimentary production processes. Rather than picking fruit in our backyard and eating it, most of us today get it from fruit farms that use complex picking, sorting, and packing machinery to process carefully engineered fruits. Consider the amount of “time” (for example in “people-hours”) involved in setting up and assembling all the pieces of this complex production process from scratch—from before the manufacture of the machines and so on. This gives us some idea of what is meant by production methods that are “roundabout.”
(The scare quotes around time are used because in fact there is no perfectly rigorous way to define the length of a production process in purely physical terms. But, intuitively, what is being asserted is that doing things in a more complicated, specialized way is more difficult; loosely speaking it takes more “time” because it is more “roundabout,” more indirect.)

More Roundabout Production

Through countless self-interested individual production decisions, we have adopted more roundabout methods of production because they are more productive—they add more value—than less roundabout methods. Were this not the case, they would not be deemed worth the sacrifice and effort of the “time” involved—and would be abandoned in favor of more direct production methods. What are at work here are the benefits of specialization—the division of labor to which Adam Smith referred. Modern economies comprise complex, specialized processes in which the many steps necessary to produce any product are connected in a sequentially specific network—some things have to be done before others. There is a time structure to the capital structure.
This intricate time structure is partially organized, partially spontaneous (organic). Every production process is the result of some multiperiod plan. Entrepreneurs envision the possibility of providing (new, improved, cheaper) products to consumers whose expenditure on them will be more than sufficient to cover the cost of producing them. In pursuit of this vision the entrepreneur plans to assemble the necessary capital items in a synergistic combination. These capital combinations are structurally composed modules that are the ingredients of the industry-wide or economy-wide capital structure. The latter is the result then of the dynamic interaction of multiple entrepreneurial plans in the marketplace; it is what constitutes the market process. Some plans will prove more successful than others, some will have to be modified to some degree, some will fail. What emerges is a structure that is not planned by anyone in its totality but is the result of many individual actions in the pursuit of profit. It is an unplanned structure that has a logic, a coherence, to it. It was not designed, and could not have been designed, by any human mind or committee of minds. Thinking that it is possible to design such a structure or even to micromanage it with macroeconomic policy is a fatal conceit.
The division of labor reflected by the capital structure is based on a division of knowledge. Within and across firms specialized tasks are accomplished by those who know best how to accomplish them. Such localized, often unconscious, knowledge could not be communicated to or collected by centralized decision-makers. The market process is responsible not only for discovering who should do what and how, but also how to organize it so that those best able to make decisions are motivated to do so. In other words, incentives and knowledge considerations tend to get balanced spontaneously in a way that could not be planned on a grand scale. The boundaries of firms expand and contract, and new forms of organization evolve. This too is part of the capital structure broadly understood.

Division of Knowledge

In addition, the heterogeneous capital goods that make up the cellular capital combinations also reflect the division of knowledge. Capital goods (like specialized machines) are employed because they “know” how to do certain important things; they embody the knowledge of their designers about how to perform the tasks for which they were designed. The entire production structure is thus based on an incredibly intricate extended division of knowledge, such knowledge being spread across its multiple physical and human capital components. Modern production management is more than ever knowledge management, whether involving human beings or machines—the key difference being that the latter can be owned and require no incentives to motivate their production, while the former depend on “relationships” but possess initiative and judgment in a way that machines do not.
The foregoing provides the barest account of the rich legacy of Austrian capital theory, but it should be sufficient to communicate the essential differences between the Austrian view of the economy and that of other schools of thought. For Austrians the whole macroeconomic approach is problematic, involving, as it does, the use of gross aggregrates as targets for policy manipulation—aggregates like the economy’s “capital stock.” For Austrians there is no “capital stock.” Any attempt to aggregate the multitude of diverse capital items involved in production into a single number is bound to result in a meaningless outcome: a number devoid of significance. Similarly the total of investment spending does not reflect in any accurate way the addition to value that can be produced by this “capital stock.” The values of capital goods and of capital combinations, or of the businesses in which they are employed, are determined only as the market process unfolds over time. They are based on the expectations of the entrepreneurs who hire them, and these expectations are diverse and often inconsistent. Not all of them will prove correct—indeed most will be, at least to some degree, proven false. Basing macroeconomic policy on an aggregate of values for assembled capital items as recorded or estimated at one point in time would seem to be a fool’s errand. What do the policymakers know that the entrepreneurs involved in the micro aspects of production do not?

Capital and Employment

The folly is compounded by connecting capital and investment aggregates to total employment under the assumption that stimulating the former will stimulate the latter. Such an assumption ignores the heterogeneity and structural nature of both capital and labor (human capital). Simply boosting expenditure on any kind of production will not guarantee the employment of people without jobs. How else to explain that our current economy is characterized by both sizeable unemployment numbers and job vacancies? Their coexistence is a result of a structural mismatch: The structure (that is, the pattern of skills) of the unemployed does not match those required to be able to work with the specific capital items that are currently unemployed.
In fact the current enduring recession is basically structural in nature. It is the bust of a credit-induced boom-bust cycle, augmented by far-reaching production-distorting regulation. The Austrian theory of the business cycle was developed first by Ludwig von Mises, combining insights from the Austrian theory of capital with the nature of modern central-bank-led monetary policy. The theory was later used, with some differences, by Hayek in his debates with Keynes. Over the years its popularity and acceptance have waxed and waned, but it appears to be highly relevant to our current situation.

Dot-Com and Other Bubbles

The dot-com boom no doubt reflected the advent of a pervasive new technological environment: the arrival and expansion of the digital age. It was a time of great promise and uncertainty and of enhanced risk-taking. Astronomical book values reflected expectations that in total could not be realized. A shakeup was inevitable—and known to be so. It was part of the market process. As the boom expanded, interest rates started to rise, reflecting the increased demand for a limited supply of loanable funds. This, as Hayek would have put it, is the natural brake of the economy, the signal and the incentive to slow down. But the Federal Reserve, not wishing to spoil the party, expanded reserves to keep interest rates low, thus allowing the boom to progress beyond its “natural” life. When the bust came it was bigger than it would have been had the cycle been allowed to run its natural course.
Notice how this story accords with our understanding of the capital structure. The expanding boom reflected entrepreneurs’ expectations of profitably making new capital combinations, only some of which would, in the event, prove to be profitable. But there was no way to know which they were ahead of time. That is why we need markets. Rising interest rates and the passage of time would tend to reveal the less viable ventures and weed them out. Keeping interest rates artificially low prevented this from happening, more so for those projects that were more interest-sensitive—namely, those that had a longer time horizon—or, loosely speaking in terms of our earlier discussion, contained more “time.”
But the dot-com collapse did not really mark the end of the cycle. Much of the extra liquidity was then directed into real estate, specifically into residential housing and into financial assets based on it. This investment channel was wide open as a result of a decades-long, recently intensified congressional and regulatory policy to expand homeownership in America. This is a familiar story that need not be repeated here. The result was an unprecedented expansion of home building and home purchases riding the tsunami wave of home prices. Once again the production structure was pushed out of sync with any kind of sustainable pattern of consumption.
The solution, from this perspective, is to remove the distortions—to allow the market process to “restructure” production. This would mean a sustained period of consolidation in the housing market, not a policy that attempts to revive it (to revive the bubble?) of the kind we are currently witnessing. But then today’s policymakers do not have the benefit of knowing Austrian capital theory.

Germany: The Promise of Freedom.

May 1991.

Don Boudreaux and Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr., are studying law at the University of Virginia. Mr. Plofchan is also a Ph.D. candidate, in the Government Department at the University of Virginia and is the U.S. Director of the Multiplikatoren Seminar.



In September 1990, less than a year after the Berlin Wall came crashing down but before the official reunification of Germany, we visited both West and East Germany as participants in the eighth annual Multiplikatoren Seminar. This seminar, which is sponsored by the West German government, brings together young American and German professionals in order to create personal, cultural, business, and intellectual ties between the United States and Germany. Of course, the fall of Communism and the reunification of Germany dominated the discussions of the 1990 seminar.
Visiting Bonn and Berlin during this very exciting time in Europe’s history provided unique insight into the events of the past year in Germany and in those nations that just recently escaped the totalitarian stranglehold of Communist rulers. This essay identifies lessons culled from our visit to Germany—lessons applicable both to emerging and to established democracies.
Lesson 1: Communism failed miserably.
Communism’s failures are evident everywhere. The most memorable moments of our visit occurred in Berlin where, because West Berlin’s hotels were still filled to capacity with refugees who had fled Communist rule, our German hosts put ns up in East Berling Hotel Unter den Linden. This hotel is said to be among East Berlin’s finest, and indeed, East Germany’s premier rock star was a guest while we were there. Upon arrival at the Hotel Unter den Linden we saw firsthand the glories of Communism.
The rooms in this hotel are about the size of a large walk-in closet. We do not exaggerate. A bed here is nothing more than an elevated piece of plywood with an aged and thin pad laid across the top. The linen is threadbare and stained, as are the towels in the bathroom. Whenever a light is turned on, dozens of cockroaches can be seen scampering across the furniture and the floor. In one of our rooms, the window could not be closed, much less locked. Hot showers had to be taken no later than 6:45 A.M. because by 7:00 all the hot water is gone until mid-afternoon. Of course, less-than-luxurious hotels can be found in capitalist societies as well, but such hotels are never billed as being among the finest accommodations available.
Other aspects of our visit provide a more telling contrast between capitalist and Communist soci-eries. Perhaps the greatest testament to Communist “efficiency” is the lack of technical services that citizens of capitalist nations take for granted. When one of us attempted to place a wake-up call to the other, whose room was two floors up, this proved to be impossible. Forget about direct room-to-room dialing; it doesnt exist. So the caller tried to place the call through the hotel operator (who, thankfully, spoke reasonably good English). The caller asked the operator to ring room 602. After several minutes of clicking and clanging, the operator apologized for not being able to complete the call. The operator calmly explained that the “sixes” in the hotel’s telephone switching system weren’t working that day!
The lack of modern telecommunications was also apparent when trying to call outside the hotel. One member of our party, dialing direct from West Berlin, made a three-minute call to the United States. The price was $6.50. At the same time on the following night, this person placed the same three-minute call from our hotel in East Berlin. But because there is no direct dialing from East Germany to the U.S., the call was placed through the hotel operator. The price was $28!
Despite our hotel’s shortcomings, it had the virtue of being located less than a mile from where the Berlin Wall once stood. (Incidentally, the official East German name for the Berlin Wall was “the anti-fascist wall of protection.” The idea was that the Wall was protecting the citizens of East Germany from the capitalist hordes of the West.) Within minutes we were able to walk from ugly and poor East Berlin into attractive and prosperous West Berlin where even the third-class hotels appear to be immensely more comfortable and convenient than East Berlin’s finest.
We spent a good deal of time walking between East and West Berlin. It did our bourgeois hearts good to stroll freely through Checkpoint Charlie—now nothing more than abandoned and dilapidated buildings. These buildings; however, still echo their horrible past when Communist border guards barked out commands and stood ready to shoot any East German for the crime of seeking to live as a free man or woman. These same border guards also caused Western visitors to East Berlin to undergo agonizing minutes (and sometimes hours) of interrogation and intimidation before being allowed access into the supposed workers’ paradise of Communist East Germany.
But now, standing silent, the buildings at Checkpoint Charlie no longer house impediments to the movement of people and goods. The first time we crossed this former border we were overcome with elation at Communism’s recent demise. Millions of people once held hostage in their own land are now free to go where they please, think as they please, work as they please, play as they please, and to own private property and contract freely with others. This thought was inspiring. However, the second time we walked through Checkpoint Charlie anger tempered our elation-anger at the thought of the atrocities committed by the border guards who not so long ago occupied these crumbling buildings, and even more anger at the thought of the despots who gave authority to these guards.
Lesson 2: People who have experienced Communism prefer capitalism.
Of course, Checkpoint Charlie is not the only part of the Berlin Wall to have crumbled. The entire Wall is now all but completely down. In one of history’s great ironies, the Wall is now being sold in pieces to Western tourists by Germans from the east, Poles, and Turks who operate uuregulated stalls along its former path. In addition to selling pieces of the Wall, these upstart entrepreneurs are also quite happy to sell to the highest bidder genuine East German and Soviet army uniforms.
An anecdote aptly illustrates the new-found entrepreneurial spirit that for so long was suppressed by Communist government. As may not be known in the U.S., the western side of the Berlin Wall was covered with graffiti while the eastern side was bare. Since the revolution of November 1989, however, the market has revealed a greater demand for colored pieces of the Wall chipped from the western side than for bare pieces chipped from the eastern side. We witnessed entrepreneurs from the eastern section of Berlin approaching the eastern side of the Wall, spraying it with paint, and then chipping off pieces in order to better meet the demands of tourists. Innate entrepreneurial abilities are awakening at great speed in the formerly Communist section of Germany. It is significant that not only is Communist rule dead in Germany, but its symbols are being sold for Western currency in a very free and competitive market.
The overthrow of the Communist regime in East Germany allowed liberty and the free market to gain a toe-hold in East Berlin even before reunification had been officially achieved on October 3, 1990. In East Berlin, just a few yards from Checkpoint Charlie, a new Chinese restaurant recently opened. This restaurant looks like many of the Oriental eateries that are found in West Berlin and all over the free world. Its name is written in bright and bold neon; its interior decor is quite elegant; and its front door sports signs that proudly announce the restaurant’s policy of accepting Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Diners’ Club credit cards.
In addition, just across the street from this restaurant is a newly opened travel agency. Displayed in its window was a poster of a beautiful woman lying on the sands of a tropical beach. The poster advertises TWA flights to Hawaii. The travel agency also accepts all major credit cards. The new Chinese restaurant and the travel agency are solid evidence that capitalism has begun to creep into the eastern part of Berlin. It is only a matter of time before capitalism’s creep will turn into a surge bringing greater prosperity and liberty to all the citizens of what used to be called the “German Democratic Republic.”
Lesson 3: Rejuvenation cannot happen overnight.
Regardless of how bright East Germany’s economic future may be, signs of its horrible centrally planned past remain evident For example, under Communism’s iron fist, only 7 percent of East German households had telephones. Though this no doubt will improve in the future, it currently is still quite difficult (as described earlier) to make a phone call from anywhere in East Germany. Another example of socialism’s utter inability to provide for its citizens is seen in the bullet holes that today still mark many of East Berlin’s buildings. These bullet holes—hundreds of them in each building—were put there by the invading Soviet army in 1945. Most of these buildings haven’t been repaired, renovated, or even painted since World War II. The amount of capital required to bring this former “Communist jewel” up to minimum Western standards is awesome.
The East German automobile is evidence enough of Communism’s grotesque inefficiencies, as well as of the effort required to establish a productive economy in eastern Germany. Called the Trabant, this car was nearly the only personal automobile found on East German roads during the three decades preceding the 1989 revolution. The Trabant looks like an early 1960s economy car. Trouble is, it is far from economical. Its selling price was equal to the average yearly wage for an East German worker. And the waiting list for a Trabant was approximately 10 years for citizens of East Berlin and 15 years for citizens of other parts of East Germany.
Once an East German finally acquired a Trabant, he needed more than 30 seconds to accelerate from zero to 60 miles per hour. According to Car and Driver magazine, this acceleration rate is “slower than anything not rolling on eighteen wheels.” A healthy Trabant’s maximum speed is a measly 66 miles per hour. Also, in addition to being a pollution machine, the Trabant is dangerously unsafe. A West German reported to us that, not long after the fall of the Wall, he was driving on a West German autobahn at night when he saw a flickering light just ahead. He slammed on his brakes. Moments later he realized that the flickering light he stopped to avoid was a lone candle in the rear window of a slowly moving Trabant. The candle was serving as the Trabant’s taillight! The Trabant undoubtedly makes even the worst American or Japanese car built in the past half-century look like an auto connoisseur’s dream.
With production facilities capable of producing only the level of “quality” evidenced by the Trabant, much time, money, and effort must be expended before the eastern part of Germany will be able to compete with the West. Nevertheless, it is promising that eastern Germans now have the opportunity to compete without the heavy shackles of Communism weighing them down.
Lesson 4: A reunified Germany poses no threat to world peace.
Although there are obstacles to overcome, the Germans want the citizens of other democratic countries to look favorably upon their reunified nation. They want non-Germans to understand that there is little threat of the rise of a militaristic German state. America and the rest of the world’s democracies can trust a unified Germany because of two fundamental differences between today’s Germany and the Germany of the pre-World War eras.
First, postwar Germany has joined the ranks of the world’s most prosperous nations, and is integrated into the world economic order in a way that wasn’t true during the first half of this century. Germany is a major exporter. Its economic prosperity is protected and furthered by production and trade with peoples of other nations. As long as Volkswa-gens and Braun coffee makers are crossing Get-man borders into other countries, there is little threat that Germany will send missiles and bombs across these same borders. No economically prosperous nation increases its wealth by bombing its trading partners.
Second, today’s Germany is a constitutional democracy in which the military is solidly under civilian control, and a system of checks and balances characterizes the German federal government. Democratic nations with such constitutional safeguards are not likely to be militarily aggressive.
Because of these characteristics, which differentiate present-day Germany from its past, Germans realize that military aggression is unproductive and would only lessen the world economic influence that their post-World War II leaders have worked so hard to acquire. The not-uncommon suggestion that Germans are especially disposed to sacrifice their wealth and position in the world economic order because of some expansionist forces inherent in German blood is nothing more than a reflection of naive racism.
Conclusion: Germany’s future is bright for Germans and for all free people.
Of course, the most direct beneficiaries of the death of Soviet-dominated Communism in Europe will be the people who were prisoners of those totalitarian regimes. But people from every nation that trades with Germany and other former Communist countries will have their lives improved by the burial of Communism. Eastern Germany’s future promises hard work, to be sure, but it also promises freedom and prosperity for a people who have long been thirsting for both. In their attempts to quench their thirst, former captives of the Communist regime in eastern Germany will create wealth and prosperity which, through their trading practices with other nations, will be shared with the entire free world. 

1.   Car and Driver, December 1990, pp. 89-97. The quotation in the text is found on page 94. This article also reports the result of their Trabant road test. Not surprisingly, the car received an incredibly low score.

Serfdom looms

Donald Boudreaux‏.



Eduardo Saverin is very wealthy. Although only 30, he's already a billionaire. Mr. Saverin's wealth is the result of his $30,000 investment a while back in Facebook.
At the time Saverin made that investment, Facebook's economic prospects were hardly clear. Committing $30,000 to an upstart enterprise was risky.
Of course, in this case, Saverin's risk paid off. Facebook is today a globally popular social media site whose huge customer base proves that it is unusually effective at satisfying consumer demands. So not only did Saverin gain by taking a risk to help create such a productive company, but Facebook's nearly 1 billion users -- few of whom personally risked a dime of their own wealth to make Facebook a reality -- also benefit from Facebook's development.
Win-win.
But Saverin has angered politicians on Capitol Hill by renouncing his U.S. citizenship. The popular assumption (which likely is correct) is that Saverin took this step to avoid having to pay punishing U.S. taxes on his newly acquired fortune.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that would not only increase the monetary penalties on wealthy people who renounce their U.S. citizenship, but would also prevent such people from ever again visiting the United States.
The first word that comes to mind when contemplating Casey's and Schumer's proposed statute is "disgusting." The second word is "scary."
In 1944, F.A. Hayek published a book soon to become, and to remain, a classic: "The Road to Serfdom." In it, Hayek carefully explained how each bit of power that people cede to government -- regardless of their motives for doing so -- is another paving stone on the road to serfdom.
The laying of any one stone might not be much; putting just one or two more stones in place does not itself catapult a society into serfdom.
But keep laying the stones, one after another after another. Eventually, the road is fully paved. We look up from our labors of seeking ever more privileges from government to find we are serfs.
I don't think that we in America have quite yet reached serfdom, although we're closer to that contemptible condition today than we were 10 years ago. But Casey's and Schumer's effort to punish Saverin for giving up his U.S. citizenship serves as an especially concrete warning that, unless we mend our ways, serfdom isn't far off.
The abject state of medieval serfs, remember, was grounded in the belief that each serf was bound to a particular manor -- that each serf was the near-slave of a particular lord -- that the lord, his family and his armed henchmen enjoyed both the power and the right (by grace of God, by God!) to keep each serf in bondage (with brute force, if necessary) and to expropriate huge quantities of the fruits of serfs' labors. No serf could lawfully choose to unbind himself. He was stuck. He was the subject, and his lord was his master.
Serfs could vote with neither their earnings nor their feet.
Do not Casey and Schumer act as if Saverin is an American serf? Do not these elected representatives of an allegedly free people wish to tie down productive Americans to a particular manor (the United States)? Do not these politicians arrogantly presume that the fruits of American entrepreneurship and effort belong first and foremost to the lords of the manor, sitting in their gaudy thrones on Capitol Hill?
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

The great anti-pollutant

Donald Boudreaux‏.



Some things are invisible because they don't reflect light that can be detected by the human eye. Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is real but mostly invisible.
Other things are invisible because they are too visible. Some things are so abundant -- and hence, familiar -- that we ignore them. Even though they exist plain as day in front of our faces -- reflecting light we can see -- they are, in effect, invisible to us.
And so it is with the cleanliness of our surroundings. In the same way that fish likely aren't aware of water except on those rare occasions when they are yanked out of it, we citizens of modern market societies don't notice just how clean our lives have been made by capitalism.
Capitalism -- contrary to popular myth -- is the great anti-pollutant.
Look around your house. If you pay attention, you'll discover a cornucopia of devices and products specifically designed by market entrepreneurs to enable consumers to live lives that are more sanitary, more pleasant and healthier than our lives would be without such goods.
Start with the refrigerator and freezer in your kitchen. Inexpensive, year-round refrigeration helps keep your food and beverages free of bacteria that would otherwise infect what you eat and drink.
Helping refrigeration protect you from bacterial pollutants are wraps, bags and containers made of plastic. These low-cost products keep different foods from being contaminated by -- and from contaminating -- other foods, as well as by your hands.
Now glance into your laundry room. The automatic washer and dryer --- and the detergent, stain removers and bleach -- work together to cleanse your clothes and bed linens of dirt and bacteria. Capitalism, by the way, also makes possible the inexpensive, tightly woven fabrics that can stand up to the vigorous scrubbings your clothes take each time you do laundry.
And what about your medicine cabinet? Perhaps it contains antibiotics, which cleanse your body of bacterial pollutants that regularly killed your ancestors. Maybe you'll also find some antihistamines to relieve you of the misery of allergies that many suffer when nature emits pollen into the atmosphere. And next to the antihistamines you might find a box of Band-Aids: small, sanitary plastic strips that serve as barriers to protect open wounds from filth that might otherwise cause nasty infections.
No room in your house testifies more gloriously to the cleanliness of capitalism than does your bathroom. Little imagination is necessary to reveal how unsanitary and unpleasant your life would be without flush toilets and the indoor plumbing that makes them possible.
Close to your toilet is a shower or bathtub -- enabling you to bathe and wash your hair daily, ridding your body of pollutants that even kings and queens of just a few generations ago endured for days on end between baths. Your bathroom also has soap, shampoo and deodorant/antiperspirant -- all to aid you in getting and staying clean.
Beside the bathroom sink (with its running, hot and cold potable water) are your toothbrush (perhaps one whose bristles can be made with electricity to vibrate for better brushing), toothpaste, dental floss and anti-bacterial mouthwash. These items work together to decontaminate your mouth of the natural pollutants that regularly accumulate there.
You're only scratching the surface! As I'll explain in a follow-up column, your house -- indoors and out -- is a veritable monument to the stupendous fact that capitalism has all but wiped out pollution.