Week 14: Critical Reading

The most interesting part of The Secretary’s “The Sumptuary Manifesto” is that it denounces George Orwell’s 1984 but literally sounds like an idea straight out of it.  An example of this is the rigid quota system enacted for clothing on page 121 and the fact that you can’t live in a “dwelling of more than 400 square feet” (reasonably close to the size of Winston’s apartment in the novel).  In both cases, the free market was considered wasteful and regulations were imposed to make it easier for the economy to work better.  However, the author is failing to consider the idea that although The Sumptuary Manifesto will supposedly help to eliminate waste in the economy, it does not deal with the fact that people demand these goods, and that overall demand is what runs the economy.  The “peerless leader” sounds more like a Stalinist-style dictator who is trying to impose his will on the people and is creating waste through these regulations.  The high penalties will probably cost the government (and the people who they will tax for revenue) in order for them to properly execute so many people, and also they are wasting oil by using it to boil criminals in.  Along with this, a larger police and military force would be required to help enforce the regulations, possibly putting greater strain on the economy as more people are put to work enforcing policies rather than producing goods or services.

                My first question concerning the manifesto is, with all do honesty, how little does this man know about basic economics?  The society in this novel would have to be heavily socialist or even communist in order for any of these reforms to theoretically work.

                My second question concerns his new rules for the future mentioned on pages 122 and 123: what would happen to those who need to have exceptions to the rules, such as athletes who need more food and factory workers whose clothes may be destroyed on a weekly basis.  Would they be left to economic ruin or would exceptions be made to make it easier for them?

                My final question is simple: what regulations, if any, does the manifesto suggest that would have short- or long-term economic benefits for all involved?  I found that the fourth demand listed on page 123, if proposed at a smaller level, could act as a good alternative for an income tax because clothing is generally an inelastic good.

                 Capitalism has been called evil by politicians, philosophers, and everyday people for hundreds of years, but it shouldn’t warrant a complete abandonment of the system.  Capitalism, it theory, is the fairest system that exists, for it gives anyone with a knowledge of the system the ability to make money and take their economic destiny into their own hands.  Regulations can sometimes make it easier for an economy to function (example: price floors on highly inelastic goods) but if overdone this can lead to a socialist/communist police state similar to the one The Secretary is somewhat calling for.