Huffington Post Gets It Right Sort Of

Huffington Post's story on this subject:

"Glenn Beck has uncovered a plot! (Yes, another one.) Turns out Van Jones, President Obama’s green jobs czar, is going to coordinate a vast radical/communist/black nationalist takeover of our sweet, virginal land of liberty. Most diabolical of all, he’s going to do it by organizing efforts to train and employ low-income people in private sector jobs. Don’t you understand? They’re going to take over from the inside! You know: them. Admit it, it’s brilliant. Here Beck exposes the cabal of Big Labor, Big Green, Big Business, and Big Commie, orchestrated by the many-tentacled Apollo Alliance"

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/

Right on Huffy.

Huffington Post also reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce wants a court trial of Global Warming. That also seems appropriate to me. If the press had given us the promised debate, a trial would not be needed.

Albert Einstein said that his theory of relativity could not be proven. Instead he stated three propositions, which if empirically proven, would disprove relativity. He also wrote a book that he said was understandable to anyone with a high school education (at the time), in which he derives and explains his theory. I think that we should demand similar exposition of man made global warming theory before we waste our precious time, manpower, and resources on Cap-and-Trade or any similar scheme.

The books written about global warming for the general public, are 99% devoted to the supposedly dire results of global warming. I suppose a little is also devoted to the claim that CO2 control is the only solutions. I read a book written about atmospheric science that came out in the late 1960. (by John Houghton, Cambridge University.) It was over my head, but I could get the general idea of each chapter without following the mathematical development completely. It was about all of the physical (i.e. scientific) factors that need to be addressed and calculated in the determination of weather and climate. His conclusion regarding human caused global warming via a greenhouse mechanism was that the evidence was inconclusive. We need more books like that with a slightly less mathematical approach. Professor Houghton's recent book on the subject is somewhat dumbed down. It is mainly about conclusions and their ramifications. He talks about the "precautionary principle." He does bring up economics as a consideration. I cannot comment on that without reading a little more. I bought the book recently and I will read it. The earlier book I had checked out of the library a while back and had for only one month. I would recommend the first book and similar ones, although they are scarce compared to the "we are doomed" variety. Professor's Houghton's conclusion in the second book also seems to be that he is not sure if human generated green house gases are a significant determinate of climate. Unfortunately, he devotes most of the book to dire consequences assuming it is true. He does not seem to get into mitigation of those consequences via preparations, etc. HE DOES NOT, nor does anyone else, play devil advocate by giving any kind of evenhanded presentation of alternative theories or mitigation proposals nor does it respond to objections. Remember: the debate is over unless you're a complete dope.

Questions we have not adequately explored:

1) Is there global warming?

2) Is it caused by man?

3) What is the best way to prevent global warming and/or mitigate its affects if it is going on?

Get Your Red Green Card Here

What is the connection between environmentalism and socialism (aka Progressives, Communism, Marxism...)? I don't know for sure but there seems to be a lot of interconnected political threads running throughout both movements. A starting point to collect and try to analyse a lot of the treads is Van Jones, the new Green Job Commissar. I have just been reading about him after listening to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Cunningham. There are internet articles for and against him but none differ much in their litany of all of the organizations and individuals he has been associated with. They show me that my opinion of his boss, BHO, from almost the first time I heard him, was correct.

Without trying to put it all together, I see: youth summit on climate, central planning, green for all, solar power, US Imperialism, eco-apartheid, spread the wealth, reclaim the revolution, Marxist Leninism, Apollo Alliance, change the whole system, class justice, racial justice, Weathermen, Black Panthers, ACORN, Tides Center...

I could see a present day Joe McCarthy standing before congress waving a sheaf of paper, "I have a list..." The paper would only contain a list the party commissars (i.e. President Obama's Czars - see "Czars or Commissars" in this blog).

Mr. Jones says he is a communist. He says he wants to use environmentalism to advance social justice and equality.

This is just great but he does not add a few other term that would have to come into play: Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Fascism, gulags, re-education, big brother, permanent under production and unemployment, poverty, riots, war, gun confiscation, mind-control, media control, 1984, Gestapo, Chickenshitnewworld...

Freedom? What in the world could be the use of that?

Angry Mobs

I haven't made it to town hall meetings but I did go to two Tea Parties in Olympia, Washington. I wanted to get some photos of violent, rude, loud, and angry protesters. I will be posting some of these photos.

In the above photos you can see that the little blond girl is waiving a banner with a drawing of a POISONOUS serpent. The caption says, "Don't Tread on Me." Just what is she threatening to do? The lady with the sign and her two indoctrinated daughters (probably home schooled) are smiling but you can see the hate in their hearts. Their sign has a quotation from the war monger Barry Goldwater. I think she has a gun hidden under that dress. Lastly, the lady in the wheelchair is faking. The insurance companies paid her big bucks.

New Energy Discovery

If you want to discover a new energy source, find out about nuclear. It's not new but the information in the following linked article was new to me. If what the author of this article is saying is even half correct, why is anyone concerned about developing new sources of energy? We have about the closest thing to a perfect source in nuclear energy. The main issue in the energy debate should be how to restart the nuclear program. As the article points out, even the waste is 95% recyclable. Our current misguided nuclear waste storage methods, dating to the Carter administration, put up an artificial hurdle to a viable program. We utilise an extremely wastefully and ecologically unsound method of storing so-called waste, which is actually a very valuable byproduct that can be recycled in power production or in nuclear medicine applications.

If anyone wants to pursue conspiracy theories, this seems to me to be fertile ground. Both the cap-and-traders and fossil fuelers would stand to lose big time. One or both must be behind the antinuclear propaganda campaign.

See story by Ray Harvey at the von Mises Institute: http://mises.org/story/3536

New Day for living Reaganites

What we have here is an (intentional) failure to communicate. I can usually end arguments with young children quickly. If they object to something, I ask them if they want to argue. If they say yes; I say no. If they say no; I say yes. Then we continue the argument thus: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no …. We both get tired of this fairly soon and usually forget what the original argument was about. It seems that many on the left are using this method to avoid debate by turning it into an argument about arguing.

Paul Krugman has written several columns about the congressional health care bills that illustrate that this sort of lack of communication is the problem. Normally if party A says something and Party B states what their objection is, then Party A should address what party B said. With the health care debate, Party A (the left) only repeats their original statements ignoring the objection of party B. They then claim that no coherent arguments are being offered. Then party B (the right), because they got no response, has to repeat their objections, somewhat louder because they feel that party A did not hear them. Then party A accuses party B of shouting and repeating the same old arguments. Well, party A, why don’t you address those same old arguments?

Paul Krugman's dismissal of any contrary views is reminiscent of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s observation that the left says they want to hear other opinions, but then are shocked to hear that there are any other opinions. (The exact quotation is elsewhere in this web site.) In his August 25, 2009 column, Mr. Krugman goes on to attack any free market views as the battered remnant of the failed policies of the Reagan administration. (The somewhat clever title(s) of his column is, "Night of the Living Reaganites." or "All the Presidents Zombies" The Seattle paper had a different headline that the Times, I guess. See NYT version: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=2) Here again he dismisses all the achievements of conservative policies by simply stating that they do not exist. (It would take a month to refute all of the misstatements and faulty logic in Mr. K's column. For an attempt see: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/24/paul-krugman-clears-throat-new) In my opinion, the shortcoming of Ronald Reagan was that he did not adopt the conservative policies that he so eloquently advocated. Government indeed grew under Reagan. That is certainly not a fault of conservatism but another example of conservatism not being tried.

There have been many coherent and cogent arguments made against a government health care option, starting with the objection that it would soon not be optional because it would drive out private insurance. It has been explained ad nausium how this would happen based upon people and employers making decisions in their economic interest. (No plan that assumes people would act otherwise can ever succeed.) President Obama's only rebuttal is that insurance companies would work like Fed Ex, which competes with the post office. (My and other's sur-rebuttal was made a few days ago - see this blog) Mr. Krugman apparently is saying that this is not even an argument at all. There is the further argument that there would be less incentive for research and development in medicine; and even more importantly, no way to determine how to allocate research resources. Of course the Übermenschkins of control central would claim that yes they can do that, but that is to anticipate the rejoinder that they demure to make. (See von Mises, Economic Calculations in the Socialist Commonwealth; and also The Calculations Argument, an on-line article at Mises Institute, for the argument that no they can't.) Yes Mr. Krugman, the current plans, to the extent that they would involve government action, would result in shortages of some types of medical services.

Economic arguments regarding the inefficiencies of socialism and of government in general can be difficult to grasp. Essentially it boils down to the unhindered market place being the only possible determinate of the best combination of resources to be allotted to every possible use. John Muir said that if we pull on a single tread of nature, we will find it attached to the rest of the world. We too are a part of nature and all of our actions, including economic decisions are interrelated. That may explain the title of Ludwig von Mises' greatest work, Human Action. Destructive government intervention reverberates through our lives destroying or wasting our very limited recourse's. One argument that is easier to grasp is the cost: the current administration is budgeting deficit spending that is greater than that of all previous administrations added together.

Besides economic arguments that government control causes inefficiencies and misallocations of resources (and what are recessions but the inevitable result of such wasted resources); there are social arguments regarding how government would replace personal and family health decisions. The "death panels" objection of Sarah Palin is ridiculed instead of addressed (as everything about Sarah Palin is). It has been my experience in dealing with government that we would be lucky to get death panels. What we would actually get is a denial of treatment based upon some codes read by a computer. If we could appeal at all, it would begin with several hours trying to find the correct faceless bureaucrat. At least insurance companies can ultimately be held to the terms of their policy and applicable law. In the final analysis, the government is de facto and de jure a law unto itself.

The arguments against government control of health care have been proffered for decades if not centuries, as have the arguments against socialistic policies in general. Why cannot the proponents even acknowledge that such arguments exist? To quote Mr. Krugman's column, "Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction -- in Congress, if not with the broader public -- simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program." Mr. K should read about objections to government programs (and objections to the methods of discourse of the left) in chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.

Next Bubble - Health Care?

It seems that too many resources are going to health care. I have heard numbers of around one-fifth of gross domestic product going to health care. Based upon recent construction projects that I have seen and a cursory review of web searches, there seem to be a lot of new hospitals and expansions of existing hospitals. This could just be the most visible aspect of medical care capacity expansion. Researching financial data to check this would not be difficult but it seems obvious. This could be in response to demand that is artificially enhanced by specific government stimulation along with monetary expansion. (The same as happened with housing.) Certainly the growth in government medical programs, tax incentives, and mandates on private health insurance are indications to business of accelerating market growth. Low interests rates thanks to the Fed have encouraged all kinds of capital projects. (This is the basis of the Austrian School theory of business cycles.)

However, web searches also reveal a lot of stalled projects due to lack of financing. Entrepreneurs are no doubt undercutting higher cost hospital based care. People are looking for alternatives and are foregoing nonurgent medical care. The turn down can be attributed to recession based fears and caution on the part of consumers. When things get tight, apparently medical care is not high on the list of what people see as necessities. The actual priority that people place upon their wants and needs eventually asserts itself. Housing was pumped up by government intervention and of course eventually fell. If not health care what could be next? Maybe education?

Only a free market can allocate resources to where they can best be used to satisfy our wants as we prioritize those wants. Government is not able to do this according to economic theory as born out by attempts at socialization. Time to try less government and more freedom maybe?

Albert Jay Nock Up and Coming?

I predict that Albert Jay Nock will make a come back. That is his ideas and writings will, since he himself died in 1945. Some will say that his ideas never went anywhere; there are clubs and newsletters and probably blogs devoted to him. He was a journalist and author. The main thrust of his beliefs was that the state was the cause of all of our problems. He thought that complete economic freedom would lead to political and social and all other genres of freedom. (As opposed to socialist writers, who believed pretty much the opposite.) He said that the state claimed and practiced a monopoly on crime. Occasionally it would lull us into complacency by granting and guaranteeing a few "rights." Maybe four or five or ten. Actually, what we should have is no state and all rights and freedoms. This is certainly anarchy and he is indeed a hero of the anarchist movement. He would probably say that anarchy is a statist concept. Here is a link to a short article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker23.html

This is a Paragraph from the Wikopedia article:

"During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d'etat. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s were responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it."

It is his insight regarding the Great Depression that might bring about his revival. It seems obvious that the above paragraph is a pretty good summary of our current economic situation.

Nock's writings about money, business cycles, and government spending almost mirror those of von Mises and other "liberals." I doubt Nock had an academic economic background but he was well schooled in the classics and self-educated in everything else. His writing about social security insurance could be used to help understand the current proposals for government health insurance:
"What such schemes actually come to is that the workman pays his own share outright; he pays the employer's share in the enhanced price of commodities; and he pays the government's share in taxation. He pays the whole bill; and when one counts in the unconscionably swollen costs of bureaucratic brokerage and paperasserie, one sees that what the workman-beneficiary gets out of the arrangement is about the most expensive form of insurance that could be devised consistently with keeping its promoters out of gaol."

He also predicted the rise of Obama-like figures (of which BHO was by no means the first):

"It certainly took no great perspicacity to see that these two measures [income tax and popular election of senators] would straightway ease our political systems into collectivism as soon as some Eubulus, some mass-man overgifted with sagacity, should maneuver himself into popular leadership; and in the nature of things, this would not be long."

Regarding patriotism, he said, "As a general principle, I should put it that a man's country is where the things he loves are most respected." Since he also said, "All I ever asked of life was the freedom to think and say exactly what I pleased, when I pleased, and as I pleased. I have always had that freedom," I would say that America was his country. Let's hope we can keep it a place where freedom is most respected.

When Will Media Take off the Blinders?

As it is hard to find the time to do the searches and research, not to mention the composition, required to write a short post that does justice to a topic, I will again quote at length from a source on the web. (The Wall Street Journal; Best of the Web Today, August 14, 2009):


"The Media and the Haters on the Left Our item yesterday on media coverage of anti-Iraq vs. anti-ObamaCare protests prompted some interesting reader commentary, including this from William White:
The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.
First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)
Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.
Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html

The poor job done by the news media in telling us what is really happening is a major cause of most societal problems. If we knew what was going on, we would vote for leaders who proposed solutions to the underlying problems, not to our superficial, though chronic, difficulties. The above quotation and other comments in the cited article demonstrate instances of media reporting based on their own political bias, while ignoring or even concealing obviously relevant evidence that is staring them right in the face. The goals and methods of the left are things that we should know in order to make an informed evaluation of current events. For a long time, the major mass media obviously has wanted us ignorant. Why? That's a good question.

Jivin' Man Obama

Radio talk show callers a few weeks ago were suggesting songs to replace the Star Spangled Banner. This was in response to a columnist who thought that we had grown beyond Francis Scott Keyes' martial air. "I'm Sorry," it was decided would be a better replacement for "Hail to the Chief" than for the national anthem. It seemed to be fitting after some of President Obama's remarks made overseas. However, he is anything but apologetic while at home. Therefore I propose a song for the presidential theme that seems to have a more general application to his pronouncements and policies: "Jivin Man Blues." The only version I know of is Dave Van Ronk's on his "Sunday Street" album.

He was a jivin' man from his birth...

He jived every soul, he jived the mule named Maud
He was so game he jived the Cadillac squad
He had a habit of jivin' and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord.

He jived so much it was a mystery
He even jived the gang who made policy
He jived the whole creation and that ain't all
With his lord, lord, lord, lord, lord...

A sample of this song is available at Pandora Radio.
http://www.pandora.com/music/album/dave+van+ronk/sunday+street

On Pandora, you sign up for a free membership to hear songs in a given user defined genre. You can not play a specific song but can hear a short sample. This web site has a great data base. I have ordered several CD via their links to amazon and other places. You can also buy MP3 downloads.

Regarding BHO's jivin', I have listened very hard but still don't get it. He talks a lot about the problem and tells me who I should blame. Then he explains the great things he will achieve. They are the same great things that they had promised before and generally, the things all humanity wants and have always striven for, but now he can deliver. What I do not get is how exactly he intends to accomplish these great things.

I am becoming more and more convinced that what he and his central committee want is power and control. They do not particularly care about health care or global warming, these are only convenient vehicles for furthering their policy ends. They serve their purpose well because climate and sickness are things that never go away. There are so many variables that their solutions can never be shown to have failed. The problem was just bigger that they thought and would require even more intrusive intervention. BHO is the snake oil salesman who makes it all sound easy.

BHO Makes His Pitch

BHO's anti-manmade global warming plans defy the laws of physics and, along with his other proposals, defy the laws of economics. Now he has performed the greatest feat of all by beating the laws of statistics. His operatives tell us that his recent town meeting attendees were chosen at random, yet all of them seem to join in the applause and standing ovations. Now the current polls may be wrong but how can they be that wrong? He has less that 50% support on health care yet nearly everyone there seemed to be behind him. Those that had misgivings did not object vehemently and were easily assuaged by his cool sales pitch. Apparently he was able to convince over half of the audience of the folly of their ways. So maybe it was his sales skills and not the luck of the draw that gave him such a tame audience.

In the last meeting, based upon the word count of Sean Hannity, BHO out-spoke the audience by 9 to 1. I thought that these meetings were to give us a chance to tell our elected officials what we thought. That apparently does not apply to these presidential speech opportunities.

“Speech therapy: The ability to soothe or placate dissent about an issue through excellent, if empty, rhetoric."
Witness President Obama’s words at recent town hall meetings about health care…
— Andrew (comment to this New York Times column)
About Schott's Vocab 8/14/09 NYT

Mobs Say Down with Post Office

Today, Llewellyn Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute commented on BHO’s Post Office argument for Healthcare. He points out how in 1917, V. Lenin had also used a comparison to the national Russian Post Office to explain how his plan would work. (The Russian Post Office must have functioned better that ours or I am sure Lenin would have thought better that making that comparison.)

A few quotes from Professor Llewellyn: “How can a private company compete against the government? Simply because government is so terrible at what it does that even a private company that is beaten down and attacked and competed against with all the tax dollars in the world will do better than the government. It is true in mail and it is true in healthcare.” …

“But here is the question that socialists have never been able to answer: if the goal is to get government to operate like a private service, what is the value added by having it provided by the government in the first place? The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government's involvement at all.” …

“The right path to healthcare reform is the market path (no subsidies, no monopolies such as drug patents, no licensure, no anything) that tends toward universal distribution at very low prices and relentless improvement in service. The wrong path is to make healthcare run the same way as the post office. Obama seems to favor the latter path, even though he admits that it is the least-well-performing one. This is surely the definition of fanaticism. If the mobs aren't angry, they should be.”

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Posted on Mises Daily 8/13/09
http://mises.org/story/3646

Not Listening Still

Today BHO spokesperson Gibbs says town hall attendees are not indicative of America and the sentiments of the populace. They are indicative of my sentiments. Not only is this administration not listening to the people, they are trying to silence us via their propaganda machine. I do not want socialism and I do not know anyone who does. Some people may have wanted change but not this.

Medicare costs much more that predicted and budgeted. Tax payers have to pick-up the multi billion (or I suppose trillion) dollar bill. If this isn't failure, I do not know what is. By broadening the scope of government health care we can include more of the population and take in more money. This is ponzi finance: if Medicare needs money, we make more promises to provide more care to more people so we can get more money to catch up with medicare shortages. Who will pick-up the bill for the new programs? BHO does not care.

A Government-single-payer economic model does not work in health care or anything else. The bigger it gets, the worse it works. There is no shortage of economic and medical system experts who can explain in great depth why this is so. Supporters of the current proposals are not listening to objections. They prefer to continue to asset that there are no cogent arguments offered by opponents. I have listened to them but not only hear no cogent arguments in favor of their proposal but have not even heard exactly what their proposal is.

When do we try freedom is what I ask.

Mixed-Up Economy: We are All Bloodsuckers Now

John Maynard Keynes was an intellectual descendant of Karl Marx not of Adam Smith or David Ricardo. The policies he advocated lead, sometimes little by little and sometimes by leaps and bounds, to socialism. Socialism, once achieved, must ultimately fail and leads to the breakdown of society (via the breakdown of the division of labor, as Professor von Mises has explained). From there, who knows: military dictators, back to feudal warring states or tribes or...?

Paul Samuelson was a recent leading Keynesian, who gained prominence by writing the college economics text book that was most in fashion during the 1970's and '80's. Currently we have Nobel prize winning economist and NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman to carry the Keynesian flag. There have been and are many others, they advance the cause of socialism. (Even Richard Nixon made the famous remark, "We are all Keynesians now." He didn't know any better apparently or he was sharing the blame for his deficit spending.)

One of the many faults of Lord Keynes, was that his theories justified government deficit spending. Deficits have a few problems, the biggest being perhaps that they allows greater government intervention in the economy (not to mention inflation). Samuelson explained methods of determining the proper values of various economic parameters and how government could fiddle around to obtain the optimum results. For example, the government needs to and is able to, through taxing and spending, achieve "full employment." Now, by applying Keynes and Samuelson's methods, Mr. Krugman says that BHO's stimulus deficit spending is great, just not enough. (Mr. Krugman also advocates more regulation, which is another story.)

I have linked to a better explanation of these foolish theories that I could ever provide:

http://mises.org/story/3608
　
Economics of Oblivion; Mises Daily by George Koether

A few quotes: "Laissez-faire is dead, long live the "mixed economy!" Unfortunately it is often difficult to tell which is more mixed, the economy or the professors. They try their best to seem as sincerely opposed to "complete" socialism as they are obviously cocksure rugged individualism is gone forever. Their "mixed economy" seems to be a course midway between capitalism and socialism, with careful avoidance of the "bad" in each.
The difficulties they encounter in trying to steer between the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of capitalism would be amusing if the implications were not so tragic."
...
"Wrong again. Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.
That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so."
...
"This "new economics" is neither new nor economics. Instead, it is a concatenation of statistics, mathematics and social philosophy used in support of the age-old sophistries of government inflationism."

A quote from John Maynard Keynes, revealing what his true wishes were regarding the socialist state: "[T]he sharp distinction, approved by custom and convention during the past two centuries, between the property and rights of a State and the property and rights of its nationals is an artificial one, which is being rapidly put out of date … and is inappropriate to modern socialistic conceptions of the relations between the State and its citizens"- Cf. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York, 1920), p. 71 (quoted in above article.)
According to the author, George Koether, these teaching, because they offer an easy way to prosperity (and for politicians to reward their voters and special interests supporters) have driven out more sensible economic thinking, as debased coinage will drive out the true gold.

Do you renounce BHO and all his empty promises?

Free Trade: No Stimulus Please

The following quotation and link to an article by William Graham Sumner refers to free international trade as opposed to trade barriers such as tariffs. He also talks about other modes of government intervention and the principals discussed apply to any government intervention aimed at helping a particular party to obtain a better position in the market place. This could refer to government aid for the biggest industrial corporations or for workers in a given trade. His clearly stated view is that any government aid meant to stimulate one enterprise, hurts others, the national economy as a whole, and eventually the favored enterprise itself:

"The free trader further holds that protection is all a mistake and delusion to those who think that they win by it, in that it lessens their self-reliance and energy and exposes their business to vicissitudes that, not being incident to a natural order of things, cannot be foreseen and guarded against by business skill; also that it throws the business into a condition in which it is exposed to a series of heats and chills, and finally, unless a new stimulus is applied, reduced to a state of dull decay. They therefore hold that even the protected would be far better off without it." -- William Graham Sumner; from the essay "What is Free Trade," first published in The Forgotten Man and Other Essays (1918). http://mises.org/story/3604

Socialism Marches On

Today, President Obama addressed the objection that private insurance could not compete against a government owned "insurance" enterprise. He stated, among other things, that UPS and Fed Ex currently compete against the Post Office, so why couldn't insurance companies also compete against a government enterprise? He did mention that the post office has chronic financial troubles (and thus is tax payer supported). I doubt that they even count the cost of the postal workers pensions. There are probably many other "costs" that are paid by the tax payer and are not figured in the profit-lost calculations for the post office. In fact, there are probably costs that cannot be calculated because they are for good and services from other government agencies that are not on the market, and thus have no price. The government monopoly post office also does not allow competition in the area of first class mail delivery and probably in other areas.

Whether or not government health care insurance would loss money (and I am sure it would - lots of money), it would always be competing on its own terms. Any services that it wished to monopolize, it would. Any regulations that it wished to impose on the so-called free market insurers, it would.

It seems obvious to me that government could could not compete with business. That is why it would impose regulation upon commercial insurers. They have already listed several new mandates it would impose (on top of the ones it has imposed over the last few decades). Business would not be allowed to operate in the ways it deemed most efficient and profitable. The flip side is that consumers would not be able to chose the type of insurance or coverage plans that they want. Government would surely want to unionize every aspect of health care, otherwise the government labor costs would be much higher than the private, given all of government employee union benefits. Either taxes would have to cover government losses or private premiums would have to be forced as high as government costs. These items would actually be beyond our power to calculate. Government would effectively set the price of insurance. They would soon find that they had to set the price of health care itself in order for their "insurance" to work. That, in turn, would not work either.

The whole idea of parallel systems sounds like a huge debacle doomed to failure. I for one would not want to pay taxes to the government system and also pay for private coverage. The forced failure of private insurance would be in furtherance of their ultimate plan. Talk radio has been playing clips of BHO and other Party dignitaries making campaign speeches at Party gatherings. They state quite clearly that a single payer government plan is what they want. BHO says we may not get it right away. We may have to offer a private option for a while. Presumably, this would be crippled by "regulation" then phased out and the government plan would take over the whole thing. This is exactly the socialists dream and method in all areas of human society and always has been. It has already happened to GM and Chrysler and to the biggest mortgage companies and banks. I do not see how anyone can really be deceived by this unless they want to be.

Silent Majority No More

I heard Rep. Dave Reichert (R. Wash.) questioned on a local radio program after he had voted for Cap-and Trade (see http://www.redcounty.com/cap-trade-vote-offers-washington-republicans-one-important-thing ) I wanted to hear why he thought it was a good idea. Instead, I heard him filibuster the interview by going into a long monologue explaining that representatives cannot possible read all of the bills before them. I wanted to ask him why he thought this was just any bill, and not the biggest power grab in history? At least he should insist upon time to read or thoroughly understanding this bill before voting on it. He went on and on about irrelevancies since he obviously didn't know anything beyond a few talking points. I felt like yelling at the radio. If I was there, I would have interrupted him out of sheer frustration with his unwillingness or inability to address an actual issue.

Our legislators have returned to their home states for Congress's August recess. We have all heard how the crowds at their town meetings back home have been characterized: angry unruly mobs doing the bidding of insurance companies by interrupting and shouting down their elected representatives. (We have all heard the far more outrageous accusations of Pelosi et al. See following for a reasonable discussion of the Democrat's response to the exercise of free speech by anyone who disagrees with them: http://www.examiner.com/x-19160-Bucks-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Angry-mobs-swastikas-and-healthcare-town-hall-meetings ) Excerpt:

"The so called mobs are angry because they know that the "Affordable Healthcare Act of 2009." is bad legislation and will hurt businesses and those who work hard in this country. It will take away rights and freedoms, steering this country toward a Socialist agenda which Americans do not want. This is the American way. Americans will always speak out against tyranny and voicing dissent. Deal with it!"

Are they loud? Maybe that is because they are tired of not being heard.
Are they interrupting? Maybe it's because they are tired of being fed the same old lies.

As Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said recently to Glenn Beck, "We will not be silenced...[by those who think] tolerance isn't a two way street."

Confess (We Know All Anyway!)

The White House apparently has a website where we can rat-out potential political dissidents. This was reported yesterday by The Great One, His Excellency, Mark Levin. BHO wants us to report any conversations, emails, blog posts, etc. that disseminate information that is not in step with the correct view, that is to say, his view (regarding the congressional health care bill that is, but I am sure that information regarding other dissenters would be appreciated). That way he can set us straight. As a patriotic American, we should all do as he asks. Personally, I need to find this website so I can report myself.

CNN Money Poll Re: Cash for Clunkers

I tried to respond to CNN Money's question about Cash for Clunkers. I do not seem to be smart enough to understand how to log into Facebook, which they requitre. So I will post my comment here:

As far as stimulus, this is an example of the broken window fallacy (See “Economics in One Lesson” http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html). Essentially, you do not cause net economic gain by destroying property in the hope of stimulating the industry that replaces it. That is because the resources expended would have been used elsewhere anyway. I suppose that if you have a favored industry (e.g. government owned or political supporters), such a policy could stimulate it at the expense of other industries and the economy as a whole. Taken to the extreme, all of the destruction of war can be seen as economic “stimulus” according to the Clunker theory.

The argument that holds water, a little, is that cash for clunkers helps reduce dependence on foreign oil sources by increasing the fleet turn over rate toward newer, higher mileage vehicles. (That is assuming that the owners of the newer cars won’t just drive more – as I would.)

BHO 200 Days Assessment: Domocrat Dog OK

My cat, Fella, supported BHO early in the campaign only because he was a black cat like him. You can't really expect in depth analysis from cats. (Fluff supported Hillary because she was a girl then switched to Sarah.) Now Fella is upset about Bo the Water Dog, which shows that the president was really a dogist all along. He wonders why the press never informed us about this obviously bigoted view. Fella is also not happy with the current trend toward all-encompassing government control. He is afraid that he will be regulated and will need a hunting licence. He is upset with me for naming him after a Democrat dog.

Fluff has lost interest in politics. Personally, I think the Water Dog decision was OK but am not very happy about anything else Obamaish.

Oil etc.

I have been wonder what the facts and figures are about a few energy issues. I can't believe that most of what I hear or read is true, or if it is, it's by accident. So many people just don't know what they are talking about. I was happy to find a report, which I do not totally agree with, but which has figures based upon sound research and economic reasoning. CNN Money article of yesterday: "Curb oil speculation? Why that's folly!" by Jon Birger, http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/news/economy/oil_prices_speculators.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009072816 cited a link to:
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp177.pdf
(The paper title is: Cost, Conflict and Climate: U.S. challenges in the World Oil Market, Severin Borenstein; June 2008; SSEM WP 177)

1) The author shows that market forces and not speculation were the most plausible cause of last years drastic oil price increases. Basically, since speculators are neither the buyers nor sellers of oil, the prices of future contracts are not artificial. Trades take place on a daily basis at those prices. It would not be practical to hoard the actual oil, which would be necessary to "manipulate" prices. (He gives a detailed and more complete analysis.) The author does not deal with the economic argument for the benefit of speculation, which is basically in providing information to the market, thereby reducing volatility.

2) Although U.S. policies probably cannot reduce world oil prices in the short run, and not much in the long run, we can adopt policies for energy security. These should include: providing a diverse set of energy sources and technologies; vehicle fuel economy improvements (Cash for Clunkers might actually be viewed as helpful in this regard, as it increases the fleet turn-over rate.); and less reliance on petroleum based transportation fuels. Such policies would have the advantage of lowering our transfer of dollars to petroleum producing countries. The author also argues that coal-to-liquid, tar sands, and oil shales could be cost effective if not for global warming. If you don't believe in man made global warming (I DO NOT), those would be desirable technologies also. Also, he believes that nuclear and domestic exploration would not be especially helpful due 1) costs of nuclear, including insurance against accidents and 2) relatively small amounts of known domestic oil. Solar, wind, etc. are not economically viable now but government should spend a lot more on research in these areas.

I believe that all of this could be accomplished by the market without the government. Also nuclear and domestic oil exploration (possibly gas and ethanol also) could make a helpful contribution to domestic wealth generation, a slight world oil price decrease, and domestic security. I also believe that the market, rather than government, can be relied upon to find the best avenues of investment in emerging technologies.

A Convenient Theory

One of the many comments to this blog directed our attention to an essay:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/07/10/top_stories/doc4a576b0ec9caa441243158.txt

This is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. Not only does the author demonstrate the irresponsibility of environmentalists who make unfounded predictions of doom, he exposes quite handily the snobbery and elitism of said environmentalists.

It has become clear to me that environmentalists, (at least the growing extremist fringe), hate capitalism. Why it is that they and liberals in general hold this view, given the irrefutable facts of history, is one of the great mysteries of our time. They want to turn back the clock and undue the advances of the modern world. They disguise there plans in a feigned concern for dangers to nature. They get monetary and moral support from some genuine environmentalists. However, to these radical environmentalist, who are actually not environmentalists at all, global warming is the latest and most convenient theory so far to help them with the destruction of capitalism, which is what they actually wanted all along. Thirty years ago, when they foretold the coming man-made ice age, their solution was the same: more and more limitations on industry. Doesn't this raise some suspicions? I guess if you're a mundane journalist with his marching orders who drank the conformist Cool-Aid, you're beyond help. God help us all.

When the Cool-Aid Changed

There is no single truth in human affairs. We often hear the phrase, "drink the Cool-Aid." This seems to derive from the poisoned Cool-Aid and the mass suicides in the religious cult of James Town, Guinna. It also is reminiscent of the story of When the Water Changed:

Before the time of Noah, some people left society to live alone in the mountains. While they were there, back in the places they left, the water changed in such a way that all who drank it became insane. Little by little some of the people in the mountains yearned for their past life and returned to society. When they drank the changed water, they also became insane. The last man left in the mountains who had not drank the water saw what was happening. At first, he felt lucky in avoiding the insanity that came from drinking the water. Finally, he too became lonely and returned and drank the water.

This is my best recollection of the story, I don't have it exactly right. It is an old story meant to teach about some aspect of human existence.

Why Sarah?

The reason that I opposed the candidate Obama from the start was not for any of the reasons that the media, the democrat propagandists (which is really the same thing), or even the average Democratic voter (including some of my relatives) said that I opposed him. That is, because he was part black, the son of a young white mother seduced by a successful foreign black intellectual, a past dope smoking student radical, a secret Muslim, and the Antichrist. (I may not have these quite right and probably am leaving out a lot, but really, I cannot be bothered with remembering a lot of irrelevant nonsense.) The reason that I opposed him then and now is that he is a socialist. I stated that in a letter to the editor, (which the Seattle PI actually published) in response to an offensive cartoon that they ran alleging the above motives to McCain supporters. I thought that there was evidence, based upon his past affiliations, that he would attempt to destroy the last vestiges of our free market capitalism and I was right.

There is not a lot on which to base ones support of Sarah Palin either but there is enough evidence for hope. With her also, we cannot look to the democrat influenced press for much help defining her important qualities. They are stuck on stupid as usual, as they were with Barack Obama. I do not care about her clothing, her diction, or her family as much as I care about her opinions. I recently did see a web news article that quoted her facebook. She apparently wrote that her political views were: "less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint." Additionally, "whatever her plans, they definitely include continuing to run against the media," according to Melinda Henneberger http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/05/sarah-palins-higher-calling?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_poldaily

When Sarah Palin was chosen by John McCain as his vice presidential running mate, I finally felt some optimism in that dismal time of foreboding catastrophe. So far, I have not been disappointed with Sarah, or with the foreboding. The press and the Democrats (again, I repeat myself) are apparently in agreement that she is a strong and promising force for change, otherwise why would they attack her?

Update to Hate List

Nancy Pelosi has taken the lead in targeting the health insurance industry as the next bad guys. (That is a bit of an understatement, she actually seems to be saying that they are the REAL bad guys, super yucky, horrible, despicable guys, the cause of most of our problems and certainly the cause of our health care problems.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32237227/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Speaker Pelosi is doing this of course to help pass a government health care bill. From listening to some liberal friends, I thought that they would be pushing the "children in danger" talking point. That is, they would be saying things like, "in spite of whatever shortcomings the bill might have, the lack of health care for children has reached the crisis level and children are dying every day. We just need to pass a bill now, no matter what. Even if we have to sacrifice some ourselves, the children should not be made to suffer like this." They have not taken that tack; maybe because the proposed legislation would preempt state programs for child health that probably provide better care that any federal law would. (See "Will Health-Care Reform Hurt Washington Kids," Lynne Varner, Seattle Times Editorial, July 28, 2009; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009554360_lynne29.html )

Instead the democrat leadership is opting for the tried and true hate speech method. In my opinion, this is only a step away from the Jew hating propaganda that was so successful in the Third Reich. (That is, it was successful in keeping the Nazi party in power although it contributed to their downfall because the dumkoff Nazi's believed their own propaganda.) It has often been pointed out, that successfully demagogues have to target a few groups to hate and to blame their shortcomings on. It worked so well in the presidential campaign that without the "hate the mega-rich CEO's" vote, BHO may not have won. (The ever present Hate-Bush voters would never have voted for a Republican anyway, but then the Bush hatred syndrome may have been just strong enough to get them to vote, which they usually wouldn't bother to do.)

The health insurance companies join not only CEO's on the hate list but also the auto companies, oil companies, the "rich" and banks to name just a few. Whatever the truth about the insurance companies is, as Rush L. points out, the Democrats want it both ways. They say the health insurers are unfairly limiting coverage to policy holders and they say that they are not keeping costs down. Government will do a much better job providing more care and doing it for less, they say. (I suppose because they are not motivated by profit -- which is actually close to the reason why Government always dose a worse job.) So anyway, we need to hate the evil profiteers and ask our representative to vote in a government option. With the diminution with time of the Hate Bush vehemence, and with opposition in store for BHO, who will we be told to hate next? Maybe talk radio, then who knows, maybe you.