Dick Morris writes:
While all eyes were on the rantings of Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, the United States — under President Barack Obama — was surrendering its economic sovereignty at the G-20 summit. The result of this conclave, which France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as “revolutionary,” was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use “moral suasion” on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon.
Coordinated economic policies? What could go wrong with that?
Let’s think about it in light of this passage from George Reisman’s tribute to Ludwig von Mises:
He argued with unanswerable logic that the economic causes of war are the result of government interference, in the form of trade and migration barriers, and that such interference restricting foreign economic relations is the product of other government interference, restricting domestic economic activity. For example, tariffs become necessary as a means of preventing unemployment only because of the existence of minimum wage laws and pro-union legislation, which prevent the domestic labor force from meeting foreign competition by means of the acceptance of lower wages when necessary. He showed that the foundation of world peace is a policy of laissez-faire both domestically and internationally.
If freedom leads to peace, then what might international controls lead to? Instead of individuals trading to mutual advantage, state controls can only get in the way. When the effects begin to hurt pocketbooks, and politicians begin to fear for their jobs because of widespread grief and anger, what happens next?
Has the G-20 summit unwittingly laid the foundation for war?