One of the most important concepts to free-market economists is what is known as transaction costs. The transaction cost of a purchase is the cost over and above what is paid for a good or service in order to make the purchase possible. For example, if we wish to buy a used car, we may decide to have a mechanic look it over, and our payment to the mechanic then becomes part of the transaction costs. Likewise, if we have to pay a tax on the purchase of the car, then this also becomes part of the transaction cost.
Because transaction costs can be large, there is an obvious motivation to reduce them. As libertarians have often pointed out, the effect of government is generally to raise transaction costs, as would be the case when government imposes taxes or costly regulations on businesses. (Such costs are often 'hidden' in the price of the goods or services purchased, but in reality they are part of the transaction costs.) But it is within the power of government to reduce transaction costs as well, as happens when government inspection guarantees the healthfulness of foods, and government laws make it unlikely that a businessman will dare to cheat his customers.
One of the most important ways which consumers have to reduce their transaction costs is to deal only with people they trust. Thus a man who buys a car from his brother is unlikely to feel the need to have a mechanic scrutinize it; and a person who has always bought his cocaine from Hernando La Raza without incident is unlikely to want to start dealing with Kwame Mboonga, even if the price is a little lower, since Hernando's stash has never required him to take a trip to the emergency room.
From the last example we can see that transaction costs are not simply out-of-pocket expenses for a transaction, but also are potential costs based upon the likelihood of their being incurred. In the cocaine example, then, the transaction costs for possible emergency room treatment would be figured as the product of the probability that a given batch would send the user there and the cost of the emergency room, represented as P x C. Since Hernando's drugs have never been problematic, our druggie might calculate the probability, and hence the cost, as very small; while in the case of Kwame, he would not have enuf information to make a good calculation; so fearing that the probability is much higher, he would figure the cost is also much higher.
A well-publicized effort to reduce transaction costs for Christians in recent years has been in the emergence of the 'Christian Yellow Pages'. The idea of this effort was to bring Christian businessmen together with Christian consumers, with the idea that each would treat the other in a 'Christian-like' manner, thereby greatly reducing friction, and ultimately, costs. I do not know how well the Christian Yellow pages idea has actually fared, either for their publishers or their patrons, but I do know that it early on evoked claims of discrimination by those who wanted to advertise but who were not Christian.
PT Barnum, the circus impresario, was famous for his saying that "There's a sucker born every minute." The implication he intended was that there were always plenty of suckers around, and that a clever fellow like himself could make a lot of money by exploiting their gullibility, which he certainly did during his lifetime. He was not, of course, the only one to exploit the gullible: Stories abound of such famous cases as the man who passed bad checks written on "The East Bank of the Mississippi" and signed them "U.R. Stuck." In the present day we laugh at such things, finding it hard to believe that anyone could be so gullible; but what we forget is that gullibility is a coin whose flip side is trust, and trust is something which is in short supply in the present day, precisely because the gullibility of people has been exploited 'down to the bone'.
Our situation then, is this: We Americans have moved from a condition in which trust/gullibility was widespread and transaction costs and fear of exploitation were low, to the opposite situation in which trust/gullibility is low and transaction costs and the fear of exploitation are high. One of the best indicators of our situation is that, in the 19th century, lawyers were relatively rare and going to court was relatively simple; while in the present day lawyers swarm like flies around every transaction of moment, and going to court is an affair of extreme complexity and considerable cost. The reason for this change may in part have to do with the decline of Christianity: Believers do not commit wrong because they believe God looks over their shoulder; but as the wrath of God has faded into the wraith of God, people become more willing to exploit any gullibility they perceive.
There is, however, another explanation for the change, and that is that America -- and in fact, the world -- has become besieged by people who are expert in exploitation, namely, the Jews. In saying this, I am not necessarily using the term 'exploitation' in a pejorative sense: I could just as well say, "The Jews are good at seeing opportunities and making the most of them." But if Jews exploit the gullibility of gentiles, it is also true that they do not, as a rule, exploit the gullibility of their own kind, which is to say that the Jews have a high degree of trust among themselves. Accordingly, it might be said that the Jews have the best of all possible worlds: They have trust within their own group (and thus low transaction costs), but are free to use their highly-developed skills of exploitation among outsiders.
But if the problem of the exploitation of gentiles is due to Jewish intelligence and skill, it is also due to another factor: The failure of gentiles to be racially or ethnically aware. That is, for gentiles -- or at least the Christian West -- there is no 'outsider group' because of the Christian-rooted 'universalist' philosophy which declares that 'there is no race but the human race'; whereas for Jews, the outsiders are everyone who is not Jewish. The absence of 'outsiders' for gentiles, then -- something which has resulted from the philosophy of 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' which has become dominant of late in the West -- has meant that not only Jews, but every other racial and ethnic group has been put in a position to exploit whites, while whites, who know no 'outsiders', are unable to defend themselves against such exploitation. It is of course Jews who have been responsible for imposing multiculturalism, but that is yet another story of the exploitation of whites by Jews.
What I am trying to do in the present discussion is to contrast the time of 50 or 100 years ago with the present: In the older time, a man's word was his bond. A gentleman was a man of honor, and would defend his good name at the risk of his own life if necessary (in a duel). To be a Christian gentleman was the standard to which men aspired. It would besmirch a man's honor to lie or mislead. People could leave their doors unlocked, and they did business on a handshake. The frontier was wide open, and men with vision and energy could find their place in the sun.
In contrast, today no one thinks twice about lying -- former President Bill Clinton can't open his mouth without lying, yet he is welcomed everywhere, and commands huge speaking fees. Honor is a thing of the past. No one would think of doing business without getting it in writing. People are tied up in knots for fear of transgressing some law or bureaucratic regulation. 'Gentleman' is a joke, and 'Christian gentleman' doubly so. Anyone who leaves his door unlocked is simply asking to be burgled. And a handshake has no more meaning than a milkshake.
From the above, we can see that in the earlier days we were in some sense happier, and yet we were also ripe for exploitation -- by Jews and whoever else had the wherewithal to do so. Today we are more sophisticated, but our world is more tense. We would clearly do better by being racially conscious; and yet gentiles are so diverse that we have to wonder if there would actually be much improvement. We can lay the blame at the feet of Jews, but we can also lay it at our own, and that is probably the better place because there is little we can do about the Jews, but much we can do about ourselves.
In a way, what we are experiencing is what could be called an evolutionary cycle: In the struggle between predator and predatee, the predator finds a vulnerability, which then wipes out those with that vulnerability, but leaves those without it to reproduce. Then the cycle starts all over again: First, vulnerability; then, elimination of the vulnerable; and finally, a new generation which is not vulnerable. And so on. It is clearly a warmer and fuzzier world if we can keep from being exploited; but that is nature's way, and we are just going to have to make the best of it. And if Jews have been responsible for speeding up our evolution, let us at least make use of the lesson they have so painfully taught us.
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *