Hucklenomics: Using Richard Scarry’s Busytown Series to Teach Children Sound Economics

What Do People Do All Day by Richard Scarry

Richard Scarry’s Busytown stories are the hands down favorite of my four children. The fact that they are so passionate about these books adds to my own enthusiasm. Scarry’s books are replete with morals, values, and memories of my own childhood. My mother used to read these stories to my siblings and me when we were young. I loved to hear stories about Huckle the Cat and his pal Lowly Worm, and their many adventures in Busytown. They are timeless classics that appear to be as widely read today as they were thirty years ago.

As a student of market economics I cannot help but realize the true value of Busytown. These books are a wonderful resource for teaching young children sound economics. The key Busytown volume that serves as the best tool for economic instruction is What Do People Do All Day. This book is a series of vignettes that depict the citizens of Busytown involved in various everyday events. Yet within these stories of seemingly routine activities is a treasure trove of economic lessons that can easily be taught to young children. Valuable lessons in saving, exchange and the stages of production are ever present. Depictions of characters acting in their own self-interest to improve their circumstances in a spontaneous market order are a constant theme. There are three stories that illuminate these ideas the best. They are “Everyone Is a Worker,” “Wood and How We Use It,” and “Where Does Bread Come From.”

The first story in the book is “Everyone Is a Worker.” It begins by teaching that everyone is an actor in the economy, be they adults or children, by stating that “everyone is a worker.” The elegance of this statement lies in the reality that in a market economy, everyone acts in their own self interest to improve their circumstances, thus benefitting others seeking to accomplish the same.  Scarry introduces us to Farmer Alfalfa, a goat, who grows fruits and vegetables on his farm. A portion of his harvest is kept for himself and his family while the rest is taken into town. Alfalfa’s first stop is Grocer Cat’s market. An exchange takes place: Farmer Alfalfa sells the fruits and vegetables he has grown to Grocer Cat in exchange money. Grocer Cat, in turn, will sell the vegetables to his customers in exchange for their money. Farmer Alfalfa then goes to the tailor shop of a rabbit named Stitches, and another exchange takes place. Farmer Alfalfa takes the money he earned from selling the produce to Grocer Cat and buys a new suit from Stitches. Next we see Farmer Alfalfa seek to improve his productivity by purchasing capital goods. He buys a new tractor from Blacksmith Fox which “will make his farm work easier.” His last stop before heading home is the bank, where he deposits money “for safekeeping,” presumably to consume in the future.

The other actors in Busytown’s economy, Grocer Cat, Stitches, and Blacksmith Fox, are also depicted participating in the market. The question is posed “What did the other workers do with the money they earned?” After satisfying the basic needs of food, clothing, and saving Stitches exercises discretionary spending by purchasing an egg beater, which will be used to make fudge for his family. Blacksmith Fox opts to use his income for purchasing raw materials to produce more capital goods. He buys more iron “to make more tractors and tools.” Grocer Cat buys Mother Cat a new dress and vacuum cleaner with the money he earned selling groceries, and a new tricycle for his son Huckle.  By the end of this story, children have learned the fundamentals of the spontaneous market order which emerges when economic actors are free to act in their own self interest. It becomes very clear that this is the natural way of things, and that this example is worth emulating.

Beyond the fundamentals of the basic market order, children learn of the various stages of production in the stories “Wood and How We Use It,” and “Where Does Bread Come From.” In “Wood and How We Use It” we are told that “we couldn’t live without trees.” Books in our modern epoch might have a different spin on this sort of phrase, using it as a means to convert children to the environmental movement. However Scarry shows us that we could not live with trees as a source for the wood used to create goods we use everyday. He demonstrates how wood finds it way from the forest to its final uses as paper, furniture, boats, and houses.

Stages of Paper Production

The opening scene is the early stage of harvesting trees from a forest. Trees are cut down and replaced with seeds to grow new trees to be harvested in the future. Lumberjacks are shown earning their living by cutting down trees, removing branches, and turning the remaining logs over to loggers. The loggers then float the logs down a river to a sawmill. In the mill the logs are transformed into boards of various sizes and taken to a lumberyard. The proprietor of the lumberyard is shown wholesaling lumber to a boat builder, a carpenter, a furniture maker, and “Daddy Pig,” who wants to build a bookcase. These actors are shown transforming lumber bought at wholesale into final goods. The furniture maker transforms the wood he purchased into “beds and chests and chairs.” The carpenter builds a new house, and the boat builder builds new boats, all of which will be sold on the market. Scrap lumber is purchased by the “Foolscap Paper Company” (all employees wear a jester’s cap). The workers in this company are shown transforming scrap lumber into rolls of paper, and selling it wholesale to “ABC Printers.” I ask my children what they think that the printers will do with the paper. Following the story they can very quickly relay why printers would buy paper, and what various goods they could transform it into. The story is almost a perfect illustration of the Hayekian Triangle.

The final story is another example of the stages of production. “Where Does Bread Come From” is the final story in the book. In this story we see wheat transformed though the various stages of production until it is ultimately consumed as bread. All along the way we see a myriad of workers harvesting, transporting, milling, packaging, and baking until we ultimately have bread.

There is one final thought about something in these stories that can not escape an economist’s eye. Noticeably absent from Busytown is the parasitic and paternalistic state. There are a few government agencies present such as the post office and the fire department. Beyond that there is very little sign of the state, and certainly no sign of any government sponsored intervention or coercion. The only permanent character employed by government is Sgt. Murphy, a police officer. Sgt. Murphy reminds us of a time when police served the community by enforcing the rule of law by protecting life, liberty, and property. No more, no less.

Busytown and What Do People Do All Day are excellent resources for laying the foundation of a child’s education in sound economics. The simplicity and logic of the lessons will give them the basic tools they need to advance their minds in a world that seeks to teach them otherwise. Richard Scarry at this young age will surely lead them to enjoying and understanding Mises and Hayek down the road. 

  

Support LewRockwell.com!

One of the greatest sites on the internet in LewRockwell.com. There is not a better place on the internet to find excellent articles on liberty, economics, and history. The Left hates LRC. The Right hates LRC. Why? Simply because LRC is the one place where libertarians and Austrian thinkers join together in pursuit of the truth.

Please consider making a donation to LRC to help keep it up and running. The internet without LRC would not be the internet!

Return To Mises Academy: The New Deal with Thomas Woods

In the continuing pursuit of the truth, Nueva Salamanca is once again taking up studies at the Mises Academy! This time it is to study the New Deal and its effects under the prolific and insightful Tom Woods. The course description states: 

"This online course taught by historian Thomas Woods runs from September 6 through October 22, 2010. It examines the critical period of American history from the stock market crash of 1929 to the end of World War II, focusing on domestic affairs. Topics include: the 1920s boom and bust, the Hoover record in light of recent scholarship, the New Deal programs and agencies, the evolution of the Supreme Court, international parallels, political and intellectual opposition to FDR, and the economic consequences of World War II. Readings include primary documents, works by contemporaries, and recent scholarship and commentary."

I am looking forward to hearing the Austrian version of the story. I am not convinced that the New Deal saved America. Let's see what Dr. Woods has to say. In this video interview with Jeff Tucker, Woods tells that Austrians need to know the New Deal cold. It is hard to dispute that!

A Reminder of 2008's Trials and Tribulations!

On today's LRC Blog, Ryan McMaken makes an excellent post. He poses the question "What is worse than a Catholic Democrat?" The answer of course is a Catholic Republican! 

This post reminded me of what I went through in my parish during the election of 2008. As a Jesuit educated, Austrian economist, and supporter of Ron Paul, I was a marked man. The "pro-life" dignity battalions were in full force, and of course, were incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. I thought I would share some of the thoughts and ideas that I had blogged about this very idea of the "Catholic" republicans that alienate others through their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, and their penchant for being duped by politicians who sell them a "pro-life" bag of goods every election cycle. I had put these up and then taken them down, large in part to the fact that I was encouraging others to sin. You should have seen some of the things "Catholics" said and wrote to me! Anyway, without further ado, here are the posts. And special thanks to Ryan McMaken, who has made me realize that I am not the only one who sees this disease in Catholics in America. 

Post I

October, 2008

I may never get the chance to post ideas I am learning in my studies. Why? McCainist Pro-life Dignity Battalion goons won't stop emailing me about the "Pro-life" candidate, and why Catholics must vote for him. 

What follows is an email I received today that instructs me to vote McCain, as it is my duty as a Catholic. It is riddled with the fallacies I talked about in an earlier post. To make it more fun to read, I added my own thoughts to the message so you can really see what this unfortunate person is saying implicitly. She is unaware however, having put her mouth on the McCainist water fountain. My additions are in bold: 

“Dear fellow members of (an allegedly pro-life Catholic organization),
 
“I have an important message for you regarding this crucial upcoming election in 52 days. (This message came via diktat from the neocons that convince us once every four years that this time the GOP presidential candidate is really, really pro-life. Disregard any thing you have heard from the Pope). 
 
“As a Catholic organization that (selectively) supports and defends the moral teachings of our Magisterium, (except those on war, capital punishment, and embryonic stem cell research, all of which John McCain supports) we must be courageous (and intimidating) enough to convince our fellow Catholics (especially the ones who, orthodox in their beliefs, reject McCain and Obama for their positions on the warfare/welfare state) not to throw this election to a pro-abort like Obama (but unlike McCain) who not only believes in partial birth abortion, but also believes in Infanticide - by leaving babies born through a botched abortion in the dirty linen closet.
Obama must be defeated and the only (allegedly) prolife candidate for President must be elected (so we can have another warmongering neocon to merely tell us what we want to hear and make us feel good).
 
“Voting for a third party candidate throws away your vote (and suggests that you are a critical thinker independent from the trough of partisan politics), and will only help elect Obama (who is pretty much like McCain on just about everything else).
 
“Good shepherds (that also can ignore the world wide war that is accelerating the decline of Western Civilization) both inside and outside this diocese have reminded us that abortion is the most crucial moral issue in this election; homosexuality/same sex marriage second.  Obama supports both, McCain does NOT. (He only supports one, depending on the audience, which is still better than two).
 
“Please attend the Rally for McCain (War, Capital Punishment, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Government Regulation) - Sunday, Sept. 28th 

“Encourage many other Catholics (who also have never read Agustine, Aquinas, Thomas More, or any papal encyclical) to attend with you. Catholics (that disregard Catholic Just War Teaching and the last two Popes) can and must defeat Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion candidate ever (as well as defeat John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and any other Catholic who stubbornly believes that there is a higher authority than the neocon and socialist warfare/welfare statists that run our government)!
 
“Sincerely Yours in Christ,

“(Another sadly confused Catholic that I will continue to pray for!)”

Post II

October, 2008

An operative within the "Catholic" McCain Pro-Life Dignity Battalions has advised me to choose McCain, for he is the "lesser of two evils" regarding life issues. My reply is as follows:

1. To help me better understand your point of view, please answer the following questions:  

2. Is it not acceptable for a Catholic to choose to resist evil, rather than choose evil itself?  

3. Would Christ choose between two evils? If so, what evil would he choose? If not, shouldn't we follow His example?  

4. How should a Catholic reconcile encouraging another Catholic to choose any evil, regardless of its scale?  

5. Which evils are acceptable for Catholics to willfully choose?  

6. Why would some evils be acceptable for Catholics to choose, while others remain forbidden for Catholics to choose?  

7. In willfully choosing evil, where would a Catholic draw the line regarding the scale of evil?  

8. Which of the Ten Commandments authorizes the willful choosing to commit evil? Where in the New Testament is the willful choice of evil discussed and promoted?

What was the response to these questions? I was called Pontius Pilate! It is nice to know that reasoning is no longer valid!

Post III

November, 2008

Do you ever have déjà vu all over again? I do, particularly around election time. I experience it in so many wonderful ways, the negative ads, the pandering, the flip-flopping, etc. But I also have another wonderful reminder: some of my fellow Catholics who feel the need to remind me of what they think my duties are as a Catholic as far as voting is concerned. They say that since I am a practicing Catholic, and that I am pro-life (small p). Their claim is that as a Catholic, if I do not vote for John McCain, aka the “Pro-life” (capital P) candidate, I am committing heresy, and must be burned at the stake. There are several fallacies that they employ to try to convince me of what they believe is my obligation as a Catholic. I would like to share with you those fallacies, as well as some as my remedies for dealing with the Pro-Life (capital P) Dignity Battalions.

The “You Are Throwing Your Vote Away” Fallacy

This is a classic, because the neo-cons love this one too. I am led to believe that if I vote for anyone other than McCain, I am automatically voting for Obama, because Ron Paul, my aunt, and Murray Rothbard have no chance of beating Obama.

What it assumes: This fallacy makes several poor assumptions. First, it assumes that I do not have a conscience. Second, it assumes that I care about who is elected president. Third, it assumes that Barack Obama is “worse” than John McCain.

My response: If I vote at all, I will do so with my conscience in tact by not voting for anyone other than the candidate that I truly believe is going to act with moral clarity, prudence, and integrity. That leaves Ron Paul. (Sorry Auntie!). If I vote my conscience, I do not care who wins. Why should I compromise? As a Catholic, should I compromise my faith to support “the lesser of two evils?” Evil is evil, and is to be resisted, even if it is the “lesser.”

The “Brave Men Died To Give You That Right To Vote” Fallacy

Another timeless classic! Many like to use this one with me because I served as an officer in the Marine Corps for six years. They cannot see how I would not participate in the “right that I defended.”

What it assumes: This fallacy also makes very poor assumptions, namely that you get your rights from man made institutions like the state. Clearly they have not read the Declaration of Independence, JFK’s inaugural address, the Bible, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every Catholic should know that their rights come from God, not man, or the state. Second, it assumes that just because I was a part of an institution previously, I can never change my mind from the orthodoxy of the state.

My response: Brave men probably die more because of the right to vote, not for it. Since the modern democracies have become dominant, we never seem to get a breather from wars. In the “bad old days” of monarchy, wars were much more limited relative to today. (See Hans-Herman Hoppe).

The “John McCain is the Only Pro-Life Candidate” Fallacy

This one is so funny it is tragic. People who had just been waterboarding others for Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson, are now circling the wagons around their last choice to “save us from Roe v. Wade,” John McCain. It is ironic that they somehow seemed to never factor in Ron Paul, the only candidate worthy of the term “pro-life.”

What is assumes: The assumption here is that John McCain is a pro-life candidate who is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. How? They are not sure exactly, but they seem to think it has something to do with appointing “pro-life” judges. They also have to assume that only the president can cause Roe v. Wade to be overturned. This is merely due to a poor understanding of how the three branches of government are supposed to function.

My Response: John McCain supports war, the death penalty, and embryonic stem cell research. These are hardly pro-life stances. Furthermore, if he really wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, at some point during his long career in the senate he would have introduced legislation that enforced Article III, Section 2 of the constitution. This clause enumerates the areas of responsibilities of the courts. Abortion is nowhere to be found! If McCain or any of his new “pro-life” supporters would have read the constitution, specifically this clause, they would know that abortion is not anywhere remotely close to being in the jurisdiction of the federal courts. All it would take is one member of either the house or senate to introduce this bill, and get a simple majority to support it. Roe v. Wade and all of the drama that goes with it would disappear quickly.

The “Who Would Jesus Vote For” Fallacy

This one is not limited to Pro-life Catholics, but many other Christian groups.

What it assumes: That if our Blessed Lord were here on Earth, he would delay judging the living and the dead so he could vote for John McCain.

My response: If our Blessed Lord were here on Earth, he would indeed be judging the living and the dead, not voting. There would be no need to vote because the world would be at its end. Furthermore, if he was here in His human form, would he go through all of the trouble to go to a voting booth to pull the lever for John McCain to end abortion, or just do it Himself. Remember that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, not John McCain. Plus Christ is a king, and kings don’t vote.


The sad part is that people like this, who are incapable of critical thought, are led away from the truth by belieiving that people like John McCain, or any other "Pro-life" member of Congress really cares about ending abortion. The results never match the intentions.

As We Go Marching!

As We Go Marching was the title of a book written by John T. Flynn. The topic of the book was fascism, which was openly embraced by the US Government in the 1930's during the reign of FDR. Once again we find ourselves in a time where our government is becoming more open and honest with its policies that lean towards fascism and totalitarianism. The climate seems to be worsening as of late, but the reality is that it has always been present to some extent. 


H.R. 5741 is the latest stop on the road to serfdom. What is it? A bill that calls for mandatory universal federal service. The bill says: 

“To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”


Will this bill pass? Ten years ago no would would think that this sort of thing would ever see the light of day. But in this day and age, I would give it 50/50. Many on both sides of the aisle would surely support it. 


What would i mean? If you are able, you will be inducted into the military. If not, there are several other wonderful options to serve the state as a tax parasite. Maybe the Peace Corps is for you. Maybe you could work in a National Park. Maybe you could serve as a police officer or as a nurse in a VA hospital. Maybe you can monitor internet conversations. Maybe you can screen passengers nude bodies as they pass through body scanners at the airport. Maybe you can serve in the civilian national security force that Obama promised. Who knows what wonders await our children in the new and improved state. 


PS - You can read Flynn's book here for free, courtesy of the Mises Institute. 

Ralph Nader Interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano

Recently Ralph Nader interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano. This is one of the best interviews I have seen in a long time!


Here is a clip. The full interview can be seen at the above link. 

The Hayek Interviews

The Universidad Francisco Marroquin has created a wonderful site with interviews of F. A. Hayek. They are outstanding, and I highly recommend them!


Here is a sample from my favorite interview: 

Stand With The Iroquois!

This Iroquois Lacrosse Team situation makes perfect sense as it relates to the way they are being treated by the government. The establishment is threatened when American Indians do not act as a protected class that is dependent on the state, grateful of the “rights and privileges” it grants through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reservations, sovereign status, and casinos. The thought of them as autonomous and sovereign nations must make the bureaucrats sick to their stomachs. The establishment is much more comfortable when they stay in their place and fall in line.

This idea of how government wants American Indians to behave and this recent Iroquois Lacrosse incident that makes me think about another way the establishment has put a lid on the notion of their sovereignty. That is the relentless purging of any and all mascots that depict American Indians as something other than a neutered class of government serfs. The state cannot fathom the idea of “Braves,” “Warriors,” “Fighting Sioux,” or “Fighting Illini.” These depictions hearken back to times when the American Indian tribes resisted the state forces that sought their eradication. It is totally unacceptable to bureaucrats to have these depictions persist because they are contrary to the ideal state beneficiary, who is essentially another hapless group worthy of pity and incapable of functioning properly without the aid of government welfare. In other words the direct opposite of a noble and dignified people, who made innumerable stands to defend their lives, liberty, and property from the state. 

Explaining How Government Intervention Does Nothing Positive

Government intervention is one of the most present obstacles to just about everything in this modern age. Bureaucrats always think that knowledge can all be centralized and that correct decisions can be made from this information. Knowledge is tacit and dispersed. There is no way that bureaucrats can know everything possible to make the correct decisions about anything. 

This idea is brought to light by Judge Andrew Napolitano in this clip. Napolitano demonstrates to an unglued Shepherd Smith that the federal government is ultimately responsible for the disaster and the ensuing lack of clean up. Napolitano points out that since government has no stake in the game, that is no capital risked, it can bungle as much as it wants and never be checked. It is not governed by a price system. It has no economic accountability. It can never be sued. Napolitano amplifies a point that Ludwig von Mises made:  "A bureaucrat differs from a nonbureaucrat precisely because he is working in a field in which it is impossible to appraise the result of a mans effort in terms of money." 

Here is the clip: 

Greece Privatizing Islands

It seems to me that "private is better than public" is almost an irrefutable economic maxim. Think of all of the land that government that sits idle with resources untapped. Hernando DeSoto would call this "dead capital." Rich resources wasted by public ownership of land in the name of defense, conservation, commerce, etc. The reality is that the resources would put to much better uses, productive uses, in private hands. Alaska comes to mind of a vast government plot of land with resources untapped. As Ronald Reagan called it, "Our smallest state surrounded by our largest national park."

I thought of this maxim to day when I saw this article in the news. It seems that amid all of its economic troubles, the government of Greece is going to sell islands to attempt to alleviate its extensive economic problems. It is encouraging to see this process take place, and will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Pittsburgh Laughs Last?

Jeff Tucker has a nice post on the Mises blog that lauds Pittsburgh. Being a native Pittsburgher, I could not restrain myself from commenting! Below are my thoughts: 

"As a native Pittsburgher who left for another state I have to agree with Craig. I would add:

1) The population is older than anything in Florida. There are subsidized old folks homes everywhere, literally.
2) The government footprint is huge, at every level, city, county, and state. It grows and grows, and most people see no problem with it.
3) The city is about to go bust with its pension liabilities, which are in excess of a billion USD.
4) Local politicians are not quite Chicago-like, but they aspire to be. Pittsburgh’s perceived progress has occurred IN SPITE of every effort to cap it by the pols. There are impediments everywhere to commerce that can trace its roots to the meddling local government. They operate in a one party system (Dems only in Pittsburgh). The accidental boy mayor is unpopular, but overwhelmingly re-elected only because he is a Democrat. Good candidates have no chance, and last year’s mayoral election was a prime example of that.
5) The union power is extensive. Not only did this power help chase away all of the industry that was in Pittsburgh, it has kept a host of potential new manufacturers out of the city and the the suburbs.
6) The infrastructure is one of the most decrepit in all of the US. You can’t drive ten feet without hitting a pothole, and most of the bridges (more than any other city in the world except Venice, Italy) are unsound. The number that failed the testing after the Minneapolis incident was scary!
7) There is a tax for just about everything you can think of in Pittsburgh. Income ta, wage tax, beer tax, and my favorite, the “business privilege” tax. In other words, if you are privileged enough to own a business, you owe more. All of the new stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars. Taxes and rates go up every time a government run operation fails to generate revenue (mass transit, etc.).
8) The largest landowner after the government is the corporation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. They have acquired land on a metastatic scale, and do not pay taxes. The more land they have acquired, the more everyone elses taxes have gone up.
9) To emphasize Craig’s point: There is way too much consumption and destruction of wealth, and very little creation.

I could go on and on, but I will stop here. I love Pittsburgh with all my heart, but it is not exactly the ideal economic paradigm. It is the anti-libertarian city in so many ways.