The Idiotic “Economic Blackout” Charade

CNN reported on the February 28, 2025 “economic blackout. In Today’s ‘economic blackout’ began from an unlikely source. But it’s tapped into Americans’ anger, CNN’s  Nathaniel Meyersohn reports:

In early February, John Schwarz, a self-described “mindfulness and meditation facilitator,” proposed a 24-hour nationwide “economic blackout” of major chains on the last day of the month.

Schwarz urged people to forgo spending at Amazon, Walmart, and all other major retailers and fast-food companies for a day. He called on them to spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.

“The system has been designed to exploit us,” said Schwarz, who goes by “TheOneCalledJai” on social media, in a video to his roughly 250,000 followers on Instagram and TikTok. “On February 28, we are going to remind them who really holds the power. For one day, we turn it off.”

I posted this article to Facebook, with this commentary, slightly edited for clarity:

John Schwarz, the architect of the recent  “economic blackout” of major retailers and fast-food companies, says the purpose is to protest “the system [that] has been designed to exploit us.” Are these the same companies growing big by successfully “exploiting” us by providing mass market products that improve our lives and that we willingly buy? Is this the same system, called Capitalism, that grew out of the Founding principles of unalienable individual rights that make America great and moral and our lives so rich and free?

Schwarz demands that we “spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.” Are these the same small businesses many of whom started the bait-&-switch practice of greeting us with a welcome sign for credit cards, only to then charge us a penalty for using them? And why only “essential needs?” Is poverty the goal of this guy? What makes our lives worth living is that we can afford much more than essential needs.

Schwarz’s ignorant crusade is, of course, Marxist nonsense. Companies no more exploit us than consumers exploit them. Companies engage in voluntary trade with their customers. Trade is win-win and thus non-exploitative. Count me out of this and other such idiotic, anti-American charades. I won’t join the army of useful idiots who blindly fall for it. Business—especially big business—is today’s most persecuted minority. We should be thankful for big business and instead be protesting the encroachment of big government on our lives and freedoms.  

The article puts MAGA as the inspiration for the protest. But undoubtedly it was probably inspired, at least in part, by Joe Biden’s Big Lie of blaming private enterprise for the inflation the Federal Government's own policies caused. Remember “shrinkflation,” “greedflation,” and “corporate Greed?”

Related Listening:

America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business by Ayn Rand, Recorded live at Chicago’s McCormick Place. [This talk was also published as an essay in Rand’s book Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal.]

Obama’s Fascist “Partnership” With Big Business

B of A's Debit Charges: It's About More Than Fees

Big Government vs. Big Business; or, Political Power vs. Economic Power

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger

The Star-Ledger Exploits a Workers Death to Attack Big Business

Quora: ‘Is capitalism based on the exploitation of others?’

Thanksgiving Message 2024

My special thanks this year go to business, both large and small. Business is the mainstay of the free Capitalist economy. What amazes me is how innovative and productive business continues to be given how much the Capitalist—i.e. free—portion of the economy has shrunk under the weight of the massive, and still growing, regulatory welfare state. Add to that that business, especially the most successful, is the most persecuted minority in America today. It is under attack, not for its vices, but for its virtues. By whom? By egalitarians, who label their money-earning success as "greed." With all of the Woke claptrap about “oppressed” groups, business is somehow not among them. Yet business gets blamed for every societal ill, even as it manages to keep us all alive and somehow moving forward under the meager remnants of Capitalistic economic freedom—and still make a profit. So, here’s a shout out to American business: THANK YOU for your profit-seeking service. 

RELATED:

ARI: TURN #GIVINGTUESDAY INTO TRADING TUESDAY

ON THIS HOLIDAY, GIVE THANKS TO THE PRODUCERS

The Incredible Small-Mindedness of the Biden/Harris Administration

The recent port strike featured this Washington Post report: Biden may face tough choices as port strike continues. The subtitle read “The White House has firmly backed the union, but Democrats are eager to avoid economic disruptions weeks before Election Day.”

My emphasis.

But should the president be taking any side in a private contractual dispute? A statesman wouldn’t. But America has few real statesmen these days. And Joe Biden is as far from a statesman as you will ever see. I analyzed this issue in a Facebook post:

“Biden on Tuesday urged the port employers to produce an offer to the striking workers that includes a “meaningful increase” in their wages, citing the dangerous work they did during the pandemic.”

I find it an absolute obscenity the way the Biden Administration has reacted to the dockworkers strike. It’s true that America has long been short on political statesmen—politicians who recognize that, once in office, they put their fiduciary responsibilities to represent the entire nation before their personal political interests.

But this administration, in brazenly throwing the weight of the federal government behind the dockworkers and against the shipping companies, has sunk to an unbelievable low point. This is a private contractual dispute, and the government should not be pressuring one side or the other on the issues. True statesmen would maintain strict neutrality unless laws are being broken, which for now I don’t think is the case. 

This administration, from the President on down, is a gang of small-minded political hacks who can’t distinguish between a political campaign and the heavy responsibility of actually governing a great country. By taking sides, Biden and his ilk are likely lengthening the strike and its cascading hardships, likely inflaming the situation, and in the process throwing industries, businesses, employees, and consumers across the economy under the bus. They are a disgrace to this nation.

The Post also reported:

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, said in a statement Wednesday that “this strike is about fairness,” calling for “a fair share” of shipping profits for union workers and blasting her Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump, for his overall record on labor issues when he was in the White House.

So everything I said about Biden also applies to Kamala Harris. And why should the shipping companies share their profits with the workers? Those profits legitimately belong to the companies’ shareholders, just as the workers’ wages legitimately belong to the workers. If, in hard times when their profits are low or non-existent, someone suggested that the workers “share” their wages with the shipping companies, Harris and her ilk would no doubt scream bloody murder.  

Related Reading:

2018 SCOTUS ‘Agency Fee’ Ruling a Victory for the Rights of Working People

NLRB ‘Grants’ Students ‘Right to Unionize,’ Which Really Means Power to Coerce

The Future of Organized Labor Should Be Volunterism

End “Collective Bargaining Rights” and “Right-to-Work” Laws, my article in The Objective Standard

End Government Intrusion into Labor-Management Contracts

Law-Favored Unions are Quasi-Criminal Organizations

‘Greedflation’: Biden’s Scandalous Blame Shifting

In Progressives Urge Biden to Push Harder on ‘Greedflation’, the Washington Post reports that President Biden’s campaign advisers are urging him to peddle “greedflation,” the ridiculous moniker meant to blame big business for inflation. Biden and many Democrats have been using this grossly unjust smear on and off for a while. Now they want Biden to make it central to his campaign. 

Biden is just the latest in a long line of politicians who blame private enterprise for the disasters their own inflationary policies caused. (Janet Yellen also blamed consumers. But the main focus is on business, probably America’s most persecuted minority today.) 

Inflation, properly understood, is strictly a monetary phenomenon—an artificial, unwarranted expansion of the money supply, which acts as a tax, not on actual dollars, but on the purchasing power of the dollar. The resulting general rise in prices (as opposed to the isolated price spikes caused by supply chain disruptions, tariffs, and the like) is actually the manifestation of the falling value of the dollar. And everyone—business big and small, consumers, workers, and even state governments, everyone—is stuck dealing with it the best they can. There can only be one cause. The government. In the U.S. the government nationalized money over 100 years ago. So how can Biden and the misnamed “Progressives” blame business? Simple. He and they are desperate liars.

But as I said, Biden’s not the first blame-shifting scoundrel. In the 1970s, the last inflation disaster, three presidents blamed private enterprise; Nixon (wage/price controls), Ford (his WIN initiative), and Carter (Council on Wage and Price Stability). All engaged in dishonest victim-blaming. All were morally despicable. And so is Biden’s latest campaign scheme. Every American should be morally outraged. No one should be duped; I will not be. The current inflation is a result of Biden’s spending/monetary policies layered on top of Trump’s spending/monetary policies. And that’s it. 

Related Reading:

Joe Biden’s Despicable ,Unjust Blame Game

Memo to Jersey City Mayor Fulop: The Federal Reserve, Not Supermarkets, is to Blame for 'Hidden Food Inflation'

Economics in One Lesson—Henry Hazlitt

Did the New York Times Just Vindicate Reaganomics?

Blaming the Victims: The Government’s Theory of Inflation by Robert Higgs

Inflation occurs, by definition, when the economy’s aggregate volume of money expenditure grows faster than its aggregate real output. The excessive growth of money expenditures can have, again by definition, only two sources: either the velocity of monetary circulation grows excessively or the money stock itself grows excessively (or both). Our current inflation is attributable almost entirely to excessive growth of the money stock.

Because the excessive growth of the money stock and the inflation it causes do not happen simultaneously, some people always fail to perceive the relationship. Increases in the money stock take some time before their effect on the volume of expenditure becomes significant. But once the actual lag is recognized, the relationship is seen to be very close.

QUORA: ‘How did Reaganomics get the country back on track?’

 QUORA: ‘How did Reaganomics get the country back on track?’

I posted this answer:

It’s a bit simplistic to say Reaganomics got the country back on track. It’s largely true, but there's more to the story. Reaganomics was part of a larger trend toward freer markets and globalization of trade. Reagan’s policies can’t get all of the credit. But they deserve a lion’s share of the credit, because he accelerated the deregulation trend of the Carter Administration and his radical restructuring of income tax rates—cutting top rates from 70% to 39% and ultimately to 28%—refocused the economic incentives from stagnation to growth.* 

Reagan’s policies corresponded to an amazing resurgence in American economic power, which in turn corresponded to dramatic global economic improvements. Reagan would avoid taking credit, instead placing credit with “We the People''—the “men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers.” The result was a predictable outcome of freer markets—the economy took off, with a job and innovation-filled expansion that many did not expect, except of course Reagan himself. Reagan understood that people working and trading for personal benefit is the fountainhead of economic prosperity, and that more freedom and minimal government obstructionism was all they needed.

Let’s examine the record.

As the economic expansion took hold, after the 1980 - 82 “double dip recession”—the third and fourth in 14 years— GDP growth surged 8% growth out of the box, and averaged 4% from 1983 through the end of the century (compare that to today’s “new normal” of 2% growth). And that powerful expansion was accompanied by a phenomenon that was thought impossible by the prevailing 1970s logic of Phillips Curve economics: The strong expansion was accompanied simultaneously by falling inflation (12.5% to 3,4%), falling interest rates (19% to 8%), and falling unemployment (10.8% to 3.9%). 

Thanks to Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and other world leaders, such as Red China’s Deng Xiaoping, the successor to madman Mao Zedong, free market-oriented policies spread around the world, igniting a surging global trend of prosperity. Global extreme poverty plummeted from more than 40% in 1980 to less than 10% today. At the same time, the share of the world population living middle class (or higher) lives has passed 50%. How much Reaganonmomics inspired the global free market trend, as opposed to following it, is a matter of debate. But either way, Reaganomics played a significant role in advancing it, not least of which by giving voice to free markets and individualism.

All of this astounding progress now faces multiple threats, especially the growing attacks on global free trade, the resurgence of central planning ideologies, and the Environmentalists' war on reliable energy, especially fossil fuels. But as to the question, How did Reaganomics get this country back on track? Simple. He recognized that “In this present [1970s] crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and pursued policies to reduce government interference and thus give private individuals more freedom and incentive to work, innovate, take risks, and trade for their own personal betterment.

* [I emphasize rate, rather than tax, cuts. Between 1983, when Reagan’s first round of tax rate cuts were fully implemented, and 1989, Reagan’s last year in office, individual federal income tax revenues rose 55% as the economy soared, rising every year in that period. A tax policy that leads to strong increases in federal income tax revenues can hardly be called a tax cut.] 

Related Reading:

There's a Hole in the Middle of Doughnut Economics by Steven Horwitz

"Trickle-Down Economics": Anti-Capitalists' Insulting Portrayal of the "Common Man"

Global Poverty Decline Denialism: An anti-market ideologue tortures the data at The Guardian. By Ronald Bailey for Reason

The Growth of the World’s Middle Class May Be the Greatest Story of Our Age

Did the New York Times Just Vindicate Reaganomics?

We now have a Biden Doctrine. It makes me nervous.

EXCERPTS:

First, it is a fundamentally pessimistic view of America’s recent history. Sullivan recalls the glory days of American economic power after 1945, but then notes that in “the last few decades” that strength has waned. He talks about the hollowing-out of the country’s industrial base, the export of American jobs and the atrophying of industries. We “stopped really focusing on building,” Sullivan said, as he summarized the subsidies, tariffs, bans and investments that are at the heart of Biden’s new approach.

Ironically, only a couple of weeks before Sullivan made his speech, the Economist had a cover story on “America’s astonishing economic record.” It begins with 1990 — often used as the start of the rot in the narrative of decline — and points out that despite the rise of huge new economies such as China and India, the United States’ share of global gross domestic product has stayed roughly the same since then: around 25 percent. During that same period, America’s share of the Group of Seven’s economic output increased substantially, from 40 percent to 58 percent. Today, eight of the world’s 10 biggest companies are American. In 1989, only four were American (and six were Japanese). As for building, during these decades, the United States created and built the information economy, surely one of the greatest transformations and advances in human history.

In 1990, the great fear in the United States was of being overtaken by Japan, then seen as the predatory economic power that was eating our lunch. But, as the Economist notes in the same edition, in 1990, the income per person in the United States was just 17 percent higher than in Japan; today it is a staggering 54 percent higher. Look at demographics or energy or leading technology companies, and everywhere you see the United States in a dominant position. Perhaps we got something right.

It's Time to Bury the "Trickle-Down" Myth

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal—Ayn Rand

Three Cheers for "Trickle-Down!"

Related Listening:

Carter Trumps Reagan on Deregulation [CATO, 14 minutes]

QUORA: ‘What does economics have to say about the statement “If a company can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business.”?

 QUORA: ‘What does economics have to say about the statement “If a company can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business.”? Is that an economically sound argument?’

I posted this answer:

By “they shouldn't be in business,” does the questioner imply that anyone who doesn’t think the employees are not being paid what he imagines equals a “living wage” can physically threaten or attack the business and its owners, including the use of violence, unless they raise the wages or close the business? Or by “they shouldn't be in business,” does the questioner mean they shouldn't be legally allowed to be in business?  If the first, you are a criminal. If the second, you are worse than a common criminal; you are a fascist.

I don’t think economics has anything to say about this statement, because this is a moral, not an economic, statement. Economics is the science that studies production and trade. Morality covers individual rights, which underlies the premise of the question. (economics and morality are actually integrated, but in modern thinking they are not.)

A job is a two-way street. It is a mutual, voluntary agreement between employer and employee. A worker is entitled to compensation he agreed to, and what the employer agreed to pay him. An employer is entitled to a worker’s labor only according to the compensation a worker agreed to accept. If a worker agrees to work for something less than what some busybody calls a living wage, it’s the worker’s business, no one else’s. It would be immoral for any outside interest to force any labor contract agreement on unwilling parties. 

“Living wage” is a political, not economic, term. When an employer and employee agree to an employment agreement, it is none, and shouldn’t be any, of anybody else’s business, including the government. The premise “If a company can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business” is neither an economically nor morally sound argument.

Related Reading:

Taking vs. Earning a "Livable Wage"

Tuesday’s ‘Fight for $15’ is about Imposing Demands by Government Aggression

Earned Pay vs. Need-Based Pay--or, Justice vs. Injustice

"Greed" is a Two-Way Street

If We’re to Have Labor Laws, Should They Work Both Ways?

"Greed" is a Two-Way Street

Business vs. Workers' Jobs: Who Makes Who Possible?

Minimum Wage Doesn't Belong in the Constitution--or Law

America’s ‘Rebellious’ Spirit

In America’s genius lies in its respect for rebellion, Fareed Zakaria, writing for WAPO, opined: 

2022 has ushered in enormous economic and geopolitical uncertainty. The world is confronting ravaging inflation, an energy crisis, high interest rates and a possible recession. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sent international tensions sky-high. And yet, when you sit back and examine it carefully, the country that looks most capable of navigating these murky waters is the United States of America.

So why does the United States show so much promise at a time when others are struggling? Behind the economic data, there does seem to be in America a spirit of innovation that is unusual and powerful.

A mixed, but on-balance positive celebration of American Individualism, without actually mentioning individualism. 

One negative sticks out, though: The author refers to the elections of  "Nixon and Reagan [as] a desire to take America back, not forward." But they couldn't be more opposite. Nixon expanded the welfare state, crippled the economy with wage/price controls, and expanded the regulatory state. His policies, following Lyndon Johnson’s, contributed to the stagflation of the 1970s. 

Reagan celebrated business and innovation, and "greased the skids" for the Microsofts, Intels, and  Apples—and the entrepreneurial restructuring of the U.S.. economy—with pro-producer tax rate, regulatory, and antitrust cutbacks. Whereas Nixon oversaw the decline of America’s economy, Reagan contributed to a reversal that set America, and ultimately the world, on a better course.

Reagan was the most pro-entrepreneurial president of the last century. He was supportive of, not resistant to, America's rebellious spirit. In word and deed, he pushed America forward. His policies of reducing government impediments—”getting the government the hell out of the way”—though limited in scope, were progressive, not regressive. 

Reagan didn’t create America’s rebellious, or entrepreneurial, spirit. It has been there since the beginning. He understood it. Embraced it. Called it out. Productive Americans—the “men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers,” as Reagan put it in his First Inaugural Address—did the rest.

Related Reading:

"Tear Down This Wall"

The Resurrection of Ronald Reagan

Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan, Hoover, and Reagan

Did the New York Times Just Vindicate Reaganomics?