The landscape of global governance is increasingly marked by central planners striving to dictate our consumption, travel, cuisine, and spending habits. These influential figures span from the elite circles of the World Economic Forum in Davos to organizations like the UN, IMF, and the World Bank, as well as various NGOs and local activists. Their motivations warrant scrutiny: do they genuinely aim to improve our lives, or are they serving their own interests?
Darker motives may lurk beneath their well-meaning facades. Karl Marx, in his seminal work Das Kapital, criticized capitalism for exploiting labor to amass surplus value, arguing that the wealth derived from labor should be equitably distributed. He envisioned a socialist system where resources are allocated based on ability and need—a utopian ideal that many found irresistible, believing in the promise of a state-provided bounty.
However, history tells a different tale. Nations that have attempted to implement Marx’s ideals often find themselves grappling with economic chaos and diminished freedoms, as the state’s control stifles innovation and productivity.
Das Schnitzel
What might Marx say about today’s political economy, especially in the West? Would he view the elite class as exploiters, profiting while others toil? This realization could be unsettling for someone whose writings seem to advocate for more political involvement in economic stewardship, albeit for the supposed collective good.
Over the past century, the growth of government has reached unprecedented levels, establishing a sprawling administrative state that consumes vast resources. National defense, particularly in the United States, has historically drained capital, but recently, the so-called climate crisis has provided a fresh rationale for extensive government intervention under the guise of serving the greater good.
In nearly every sector—including energy, transportation, and agriculture—climate crisis politics have tainted decision-making processes. The fervor this issue incites among the populace resembles almost a religious experience.
Take Germany, for example. The German government is finalizing its National Nutrition Strategy, aimed at overhauling food systems to address climate change and animal welfare. This plan advocates for a shift from traditional schnitzels to plant-based diets.
Future Primitive
The strategy acknowledges that agriculture contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and asserts that a plant-based diet is crucial for achieving national climate goals by 2045.
Promoting organic agriculture and seasonal, local produce are among the prescribed transformations. Such directives, however, have historically led to crises when imposed by central planners, frequently culminating in widespread famine.
The Soviet Union’s centralized agricultural policies resulted in millions of deaths during the famines of the early 1930s, while Mao’s Great Leap Forward in China similarly wreaked havoc, with death toll estimates ranging from 15 to 55 million. Once again, planners seem poised to repeat history, this time allegedly in the name of controlling climate outcomes.
Germany’s National Nutrition Strategy is slated for rollout in 2025. Whether it will outperform past attempts at central planning remains uncertain.
Are You Willing to Starve for the Greater Good?
The economy functions as a dynamic organism, constantly shifting in response to varied market conditions. Supply and demand continuously adapt to meet consumers’ needs, ensuring that shortages are remedied almost instinctively.
In systems with limited government interference, farmers respond to market signals rather than bureaucratic mandates. A surge in wheat prices, for instance, indicates low supply, prompting farmers to grow more wheat. Likewise, as prices fluctuate, farmers adjust their crops accordingly, promoting a resilient chain of food production.
Yet central planners, driven by a desire for control, often disrupt these natural processes, imposing directives that lead to economic dysfunction. When planned economies collapse, they often scapegoat market participants, labeling them as profiteers and further entrenching their misguided interventions.
At times, the outcomes become dire—entire populations face starvation due to failed policies masked as efforts for the greater good.
So, the question remains: Are you willing to starve for the greater good?
[Editor’s note: Is the Pentagon secretly provoking China to attack Taiwan? Are your finances prepared for such madness? Discover insights in a unique Special Report. You can access a copy here for less than a penny.]
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
Return from Are You Willing to Starve for the Greater Good? to Economic Prism
