“Generosity” funded by debt or currency devaluation is the opposite of generosity: it is the ultimate taking.
Now that the air is thick with the burned-rubber stench of politics, let’s consider two tidbits of timeless political wisdom from Machiavelli. Though often-maligned as the dark Lord of amoral cunning, my re-reading of Machiavelli’s The Prince (completed in 1514, published after his death in 1532) reveals Mr. M. as a practical sort, not so much a promoter of devilish amorality as an observer wise to the vagaries of power.
Let’s start with a famous excerpt from Chapter Six. The first is a translation in the modern vernacular; the second is an older more literal translation.
The Prince (Reader&rsq...
Best Price: $6.47
Buy New $5.99
(as of 08:51 UTC - Details)
The Prince (PDF):
Here we have to bear in mind that nothing is harder to organize, more likely to fail, or more dangerous to see through, than the introduction of a new system of government. The person bringing in the changes will make enemies of everyone who was doing well under the old system, while the people who stand to gain from the new arrangements will not offer wholehearted support, partly because they are afraid of their opponents, who still have the laws on their side, and partly because people are naturally skeptical: no one really believes in change until they’ve had solid experience of it. So as soon as the opponents of the new system see a chance, they’ll go on the offensive with the determination of an embattled faction, while its supporters will offer only half-hearted resistance, something that will put the new ruler’s position at risk too.
The literal translation:
The Prince (PDF):
And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.
What Mr. M. is describing here is the immense incentive of those who have been well-served by the status quo to fight tooth and nail to defend its current configuration to maintain their share of the gravy train. Those who fear losing wll fight far more vociferously than those who hope to gain from an uncertain and risky change of regime.
This generates what I’ve termed doing more of what’s already failed for if the status quo was actually functioning as wonderfully as its defenders’ claim, then there would be little need to defend it against calls for a new arrangement.
What Mr. M. didn’t describe is the helping hand of collapse: when the status quo finally unravels, those it enriched will embrace the magical-thinking delusion that it can be restored in some sacrifice-free fashion, and that because they benefited so handsomely, everyone else should support this restoration.
But it’s too late for a painless restoration, and so the defenders of the old order eventually give way and bitterly accept the necessity for a new arrangement. Short of systemic breakdown, those who have been enriched by the status quo will actually hasten its demise, for in their desperation to cling to “what’s good for me is good for everyone,” they will devalue the currency, borrow sums that can never be paid, and deploy other artifices to prop up an unsustainable status quo.
The Prince (Fingerprin...
Best Price: $14.99
Buy New $9.00
(as of 08:51 UTC - Details)
Which brings us to the second tidbit of timeless wisdom: the enduring advantage of frugality over liberality. The word “mean” in this contexts refers to frugality, not cruelty, and “liberal” refers to generous spending, not Progressive politics. We start with the modern vernacular translation again:
Since a ruler can’t be generous and show it without putting himself at risk, if he’s sensible he won’t mind getting a reputation for meanness. With time, when people see that his penny-pinching means he doesn’t need to raise taxes and can defend the country against attack and embark on campaigns without putting a burden on his people, he’ll increasingly be seen as generous — generous to those he takes nothing from, which is to say almost everybody, and mean to those who get nothing from him, which is to say very few. In our own times the only leaders we’ve seen doing great things were all reckoned mean. The others were failures.
Nothing consumes itself so much as generosity, because while you practice it you’re losing the wherewithal to go on practicing it. Either you fall into poverty and are despised for it, or, to avoid poverty, you become grasping and hateful. Above all else a king must guard against being despised and hated. Generosity leads to both. It’s far more sensible to keep a reputation for meanness, which carries a stigma but doesn’t rouse people’s hatred, than to strive to be seen as generous and find at the end of the day that you’re thought of as grasping, something that carries a stigma and gets you hated too.
