The individual should aim to make competition law inconsequential

This morning between games of racquetball, a conversation among the racquetball posse came up regarding parsing out trophies for non-winners. We expressed our concern that giving trophies to children that finish dead last may be creating a society of slackers; a community of individuals that see no rewards from winning.  In the 21st century, Millennials is the group that has been taking much heat for expressing a value of entitlement based on just showing up. “Your mommy got you to the soccer game. Yeah me!” “We’re giving you an award for good citizenship because you tell everyone good morning while your grades are shitty. Yeah, me!” “You got an award for fourth place because the other guys in your bracket forfeited. Yeah, me!” Where does this attitude come from and should Millennials take the brunt of the criticism?

To the latter part of the question, I would argue that Millennials should not bear any part of the criticism. They are only reacting to a world that older grumps created and playing by the rules the older generation promulgated for getting along in this society.  I see this as a world created by the State and those who control the majority of private capital.  The attitude of these monopolists is that there is only so much of the spoils to share and if society is to maintain any validity, then the masses must believe that their participation in traditions and institutions and compliance with the rules will result in some type of reward, even if that reward cannot be tied to winning the actual prize.

It goes back to the “Logan’s Run Paradox” where if you want to continue life past age 30, you have to grab the crystal ball before being disintegrated by multi-colored lasers. Your aspirations must be encouraged, delusions fed, and your eye distracted from the reality that there is, at least under this current paradigm, only so much spoils to share. For over a century now, America’s paradigm of competition has been built on this lie and it is increasingly reflected in our political economy.

Americans argue that a competitive market structure is good for the economy; good for growth in jobs; good for the spread of economic opportunity. The United States over the past 120 years has crafted a regulatory framework that favors multiple participants in an industry driven by the premise that multiple providers are good for consumer choice and where prices are regulated by the ability of multiple firms to participate, the better. Actions by firms designed to keep other firms out of a market, whether those actions involve predatory pricing, vertical or horizontal mergers, or agreements between firms i.e. collusion, are prohibited by anti-trust law.  American government tries to regulate and create competition but is government’s attempt organic or an ill-fated effort to replace real competition with an artificial construct? In other words, is the State simply trying to make all soccer moms and their kids happy?

What the State refers to as anti-trust law is simply trade regulation law; regulating otherwise voluntary agreements between individuals to combine as an association that extracts and organizes resources for the purpose and creating and distributing goods and services. The State exercises its monopoly over a jurisdiction by regulating trade thus hoping to ensure that currency flowing through its payment system and the activities that generate tax revenue are left unimpeded. “Protection of the consumer” is a narrative expressed to the masses in order to garner their support for legislation that is onerous to trade.

The individual doesn’t need these laws once he understands self-reliance. The individual producing their own electricity with today’s technology need not worry about a utility’s monopoly. She does need to worry about the State’s invalid argument for helping to maintain it.  The individual using 3-D printing- technology to design and create tools and clothing need not worry about price gouging unless a so- called consumer protection agency extends its jurisdiction by promulgating rules that prohibits said production. The individual that generates valuable information and data for sale and transmits the value of that data via her own cryptocurrency need not worry about fiat currency created and issued by a central bank, unless that central bank and her ally, the treasury, promulgate rules that challenges the issue of an individual’s currency.

The individual, recognizing how inorganic consumer law is, should pursue personal policy that makes that public policy inconsequential.

For the individual, the political economy is micro.

Individuals have to act like foragers even in this technology dependent society. By forager I don’t mean having to grope around in the soil looking for roots, climbing trees for fruit, or hunting for fresh game. I mean that the approach to obtaining and using resources should be a microeconomic approach versus a macroeconomic approach.

The media especially persuades individuals that attention should be paid to the macroeconomy, whether domestic or global. Is national gross domestic product improving? How many millions were employed last month? How many more people applied for unemployment benefits? Did the President’s latest tweeted announcements lead to an uptick in the financial markets?

On the ground, particularly within the black population, I don’t hear chatter about the illusionary macroeconomy. The chatter is about the nominal prices faced by a shopper, whether the costs of food fits their budget, whether an employer has reduced a consumer’s work hours, and whether a family member can help out with a few extra bucks. People are preoccupied with managing the resources that are actually on hand.

It’s probably why macroeconomists sound so ivory tower, their policy proposals so pie in the sky. The average person in my population couldn’t relate to them if they tried because the positions of the macroeconomist sound so detached.

The late James Gapinski wouldn’t take kindly to hearing one of his former students writing off his branch of the economics profession so brusquely and being a fan of Diane Swonk (yes, some economists do have groupies), I cannot say that as people or professionals that macroeconomists don’t empathize with the everyday person. I believe most do. At best they present data about changes in the prices of commodities i.e. copper, corn, wheat, cocoa, oil, etc., that directly impact an individual’s microeconomy, but if global trade were curtailed would that mean the end of my existence or simply mean seeking alternative resources within closer proximity?

So where does the “foraging” come in? What do we mean by foraging? It is my term for self-sustainability. We should consider producing our own energy at a minimum, enjoying the benefit of less reliance on the grid along with lower costs per kilowatt hour of consuming electricity. Supplementing our food purchases with food that we can grow at home would provide an additional benefit of lower food costs.

The self-sustainable approach also makes us less susceptible to not only changes in the macroeconomy, but less susceptible to the transmission of macro rhetoric. Media and politicians would have less fear and uncertainty upon which to leverage their narratives and messaging. The political landscape would either be less noisy or we may see political packages that better align with the increased freedom garnered from self-sustainability.

The second scenario is less likely, unfortunately, because providing political packages that enhance personal freedom is out of sync with the goals of the State which is to create and maintain a dependent collective. Self-sustainability and certainty is a potent competitor to fear and uncertainty and the State would rather not aid the former.