Comments On Evolutionary Economics. Vol. Ii, No.8. March 25, 2020 Economic Stimulus And Non-Essential Business.March 24, 2020

The Assumption Of These Papers Is That The Justification For Government Is To Provide For The Common Welfare. Appropriate Measures To Mitigate The Spread Of The Coronavirus Severely Affect All Business Activity Worldwide. Governments Are Desperately Seeking To Minimize The Effect Upon Their Revenues And On Their Populations As Well. Economic Stimulus Seeks To Provide Funds When Business And Government And Institutional Revenues Are Severely Diminished By The Degradation Of Economic Activity When "Non-Essential" Activities Are Severely Curtailed. Before Applying Economic Stimulus, Consideration Needs To Be Given Between Activities Deemed To Be "Essential" - That Is, In The Public Interest- Versus Activities Which May Be Deemed "Non-Essential". Government Are Largely Run By People Who Were, And In The Case Of Dictatorships, Are, Active In Non-Essential Businesses. In The United States We Have A President (In 2019-2020) Whose Entire Life Activity Has Been Non-Essential; There Is Not A Single Thing He Has Done Or Produced Which May Be Deemed Essential In Any Sense Of "Common Welfare". The Possibility Arises That The Economic Interests He Serves Will Seize This Opportunity To Prevent Any Harm To Their Sectors. These Sectors Are All Non-Essential: 1. Businesses That Are Unable To Make A Profit Large Enough To Attract Investors If They Comply With Law And Regulation, Ensure Their Products Are Healthy And Safe, And Avoid Or Remediate Any Possible Pollution Arising From Their Materials, Processing, Or Products Or The Resulting Disposal After Use. This Includes All Consumer Manufacturers Who Cut The Corners Required To Compete, And Succeed Purely On Price And Advertising Might. When Laws Are Tightened, Procedures Tighten, But Competition Continues. 2. Businesses Which Are Intrinsically Non-Essential: Luxury Goods, Restaurants, Bars, Coffee Shops, Casinos, Tobacco, Alcohol, Recreational Drugs, Entertainment, Commercial Sports, Tourism, Air Transport, Gaming, Sex Industries, Etc. There Is No Sense In Which These Businesses Are Essential To The Common Welfare, No Possibility That They Will Produce Products Which Any Person In General Might Purchase, No Sense In Which Their Product Increase The General Health Or Welfare Of Any Nation. Their Use Is Personal, Discretionary, And Largely Indefensible As Investments For The Good Of Any Person, Family, Neighborhood, Or Group, Except That Their Sale Furnishes Employment To People Who Do Not Have Skills That Are Essential. However Stimulus Is Applied, The Resources Upon Which It Draws Are Not Inexhaustible, And Any Uses Of This Stimulus Are In Competition With Alternative Use. Should Public Money, For Which The Public Bears The Costs And Also The Losses Of The Opportunities Provided By Alternative Uses, Now And In The Future, Be Diverted In Almost Unimaginable Sums To Support The Poor Investment Foresight Of A Fraction Of The Population Which Provides No Essential Services, And If So, Why? If A Business Has Devoted Funds To Non-Essential Services, That Is Their Problem, Not A Public Problem. If Government Solves Their Economic Problems In Any Way, It Is Stealing From The Rest Of The Population. The Only People Who Don't Support This Idea Are The Ones Providing Non-Essential Services, And Those Dependent Upon Them, Including The Media. Unfortunately, They Provide Most Of The Funding For Lobbying, And Advertising: They Control Politicians Through Granting Or Withholding Donations, And They Control The Media (The Public Non-Academic Media Largely Exist To Support Non-Essential Services As May Be Seen From Any View Of Their Advertising). With An Elected Leader Who Represents Only The Non-Essential Sector, We Will Lose Any Public Valuation Of "Essential" Vs "Non-Essential", And It Will Become Socially Incorrect And Politically Incorrect To Make This Distinction In The Future.…