Every American should acquire a basic knowledge of economics. Economics cannot be ignored. Every corner of life is intertwined with the dense, complex web of economics. To treat economics as if it were merely a concept, as if your present and future livelihood were to be independent from the economy, would be to make a mockery of the reality.

Every transaction - including tax exempt, whether it be legal or not is besides the point- is a part of the economy. The lemonade you bought from the young lady on the corner street, the gasoline you filled your car with, the dinner you purchased for your family, the necklace you bought your wife, will inherently funnel into the economy and inevitably shape the future of the market. You and I alike play a very important part in shaping the economy that best fits our needs and wants. You and I are consumers, AS CONSUMERS WE ARE INEVITABLY SUBJECT TO VOTING WITH OUR DOLLARS.

As I read through articles time after time focussing their attention on the government ramping up spending -most notably Trump's recent $4.4 trillion budget request to congress "that includes money for a southern border wall and building up the military," according to voanews . I ask myself, "how do we allow this to happen." How as the public body, do we allow our government to ramp up expenditures so often with so little retaliation? Are we unaware, are we duped, is this really what the people are asking for? We will not take the time to dive into these difficult to answer questions. Instead I want to focus solely on a the pressing concern of government diminishing our purchasing power through taxation.

Emulating Henry Hazlitt, let us begin with a simple hypothetical situation. In this situation there are two farmers. Farmer A and farmer B. Farmer A has an acreage with very fertile soil in which conditions are ripe for oranges. He has managed to coordinate his supply with the demand of the consumers, and in effect at the end of the fiscal year Farmer A has made a net gain for his business. Farmer B also has an acreage of land of his own. On this land farmer B grows almonds. Unfortunately farmer B's land is not as fortunate, as his land is not as fertile nor ripe for the conditions as almonds, as Farmer A's land has been for oranges. Under the circumstances farmer B has lost 40% of his almond fields this fiscal year. Farmer B no longer has the supply to meet the demand of the consumers. and at the end of the year, farmer B's business has taken a net loss.

There is a story published in the local newspaper about the farmer gone bankrupt due to his unfortunate loss in a portion of his almond fields. People pity the farmer. They turn to their government to subsidize the farmer at the expense of of farmer A. The government subsidizes farmer B at the expense of Farmer A, so that he now has the resources once again to attempt to meet the demand of the consumers. At first glance we see that farmer B is much better off than before the subsidies granted to him. Farmer B has taken this opportunity to build healthy fertile soil, and in the next fiscal year, farmer B made a net gain in his business.

He uses his net gain to invest into the economy however he chooses. Whether it be buying consumer goods, or saving and creating capital goods, the economy will be better off as a whole. He is using his money to create goods and services which would have not otherwise been in effect if he had never been subsidized at the expense of Farmer A. But the fallacy in this lies in ONLY LOOKING AT THE SHORT TERM EFFECT ON ONE PARTICULAR GROUP, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE LONG TERM EFFECT ON EVERY GROUP.

Farmer A now has as much less purchasing power as he had subsided farmer B with. Useful resources are now being being stripped from productive farmer A, into the hands of unproductive farmer B. Money that farmer A could have used to buy jewelry for his wife, a tailored suit, or a new automobile, will now never be allocated to those resources as they would have been. Because farmer A is that much poorer due to subsidizing farmer B. However, this does not stop at farmer A. Often referred to as the "forgotten man," are the jobs that were never created, or the goods never sold, or the jobs that were lost because of farmer A subsidizing farmer B.

The jeweler's loss of business, the tailor that never came into existence, the automobile factory worker who lost his job simply because there was not enough demand for new automobiles. The community would of have lost out on all these goods, and would be that much poorer as a whole.

The forgotten man is difficult, if not impossible to trace back to the subsidy of farmer B at the expense of Farmer A. And therefore is typically ignored as a whole. But this scenario applies to every tax dollar accounted for. For every tax dollar taken from the private sector, is a dollar taken out of the purchasing power of the private sector. Every dollar that is taken is a dollar poorer the public will be. This purchasing power is taken from the productive private sector and is allocated to the unproductive, reckless public sector. The public is no better off subsiding farmer B at the expense of farmer A. When it only means productive resources are being stripped to compensate for unproductive.

My point here is that WE MUST LOOK AT THE LONG LASTING EFFECT OF A POLICY ON EVERY GROUP, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE SHORT TERM EFFECT ON ONE SPECIFIC GROUP. Short sightedness applied to economic policy will only hinder the productivity of the private sector. We must think forward at the long lasting effect these policy have on EVERYBODY. Together we can be more productive than any bureaucratic force will ever be. Resources cannot be allocated everywhere without rendering excessive damage to the economy. Only consumers decide how to allocate scarce resources most efficiently. This is a job that no bureaucrat will ever do better than the people themselves.