That is, they are well stocked with hi-caliber ammo and they are fighting back. Their arrow points are sharpened and their quivers are full. They are keeping their powder dry. Conservative storm troopers are hitting the ground running, only stopping to reload or fix bayonets. Yes, that describes the conservative backlash against the liberal accusations that they are inciting violence. The Conservatives are figuratively counterattacking in force, the real conservatives that is. Some Republicans in Congress are apparently already fearful of the leftist media onslaught of misrepresentations following the attempted assassination of an Arizona congresswoman.
The way that the conservative talk show host are fighting back is by presenting the truth and exposing the liberal so called journalists for the party propagandists that they have become. The conservatives are well armed with audio clips of the most vile remarks and reprehensible threats imaginable coming from the leftist radio and TV media figures, such as Keith Oberman, Bill Mar, Joy Bajar, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews. (Some of these may not be journalist; I realy don't know who they are but their language was certainly vile. They may be senators from Minnesota for all I know.) They also have clips of liberal politicians openly wishing violence to befall conservatives. Barack Obama is one of those politicians. (e.g. BHO's comment regarding a supporter who will "tear-up Sean Hanity." Metephorically, with argumentation he meant, just as other have spoken metephorically about politics for centuries.)
The liberals are making a big thing over some hunting and shooting metaphors of Sarah Palin with respect to Democrat candidates in the last election. Her metaphorical cross hairs were no more conducive to violence that the Democratic National Committees bulls-eyes on conservatives. On the other hand, liberals are also seen on video decapitating President Bush in effigy. On audio, they are wishing on him, vice president Cheney, and Secretary of Defense von Rumsfeld, all forms of unspeakable horrors.
The conservatives who are on the counterattack are Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Lew Dobbs, Lars Larson, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and many more who I haven't heard yet. Essentially, what is happening is the liberals in congress are being aided and abetted by these dishonest journalist in their attempt to sensor their opponents, that is us, the people. The conservative media, the target of this propaganda are quite effectively fighting back with no other weapon but the truth. Glenn Beck will be joining the fray as well as soon as he gets on the Full Armour of the Lord.
For the fine invective oratory of Mark Levin, go to audio rewind for 1/11/11:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
Regarding the proposition that conservative radio talk shows and Fox television said anything that led to the shooting by the deranged individual in Arizona, I have only the remark of Frederick Bastiat:
"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France [and in the modern USA]. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Showing posts with label Bastiat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bastiat. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Name Calling: Liberal Forte
Yes race baiting is getting old. So is calling conservatives stupid or mentally ill. If the liberals have any logical arguments, they should make them. Instead they continue to call names. Someone on NBC just called the Republicans bastards. He said that Republicans want to control minorities. President Obama told Latin American supporters that Republicans were their enemy. Ed Schults, Howard Dean, Reverend Al, and even Barack Obama seem to always fall back on the race card and other forms of name calling.
This blog was started to give scientific arguments refuting the arguments of the Man-made Global Warming proponents. Unfortunately, it is hard to find their scientific arguments. They have explained how the greenhouse effect works. However that theory was originally advanced to explain the warming of the early earth, hundreds of millions of years ago when the atmosphere was chiefly CO2. Now the atmosphere is far less that 1% composed of CO2. They do not give their figures and their assumptions to prove their theory that minuscule amounts of extra CO2 will have drastic affects. They have not attempted to advance any explanations because they cannot do it. Instead they call anyone who doubts them idiots, fools, or crooks.
The tea party and other conservatives give economic arguments to advance the proposition that a free market, without government involvement, is the only economic systems that improves the human condition and allows everyone to improve their lot. Instead of answering with arguments in favor of government control, socialism, or other economic system, they call the tea party racist.
The same thing happens with anyone who expresses opposition to governmentalized healthcare. Supposedly intelligent, educated people in the news media are the worse. Insults and verbal abuse of conservatives is considered to be a fine and appropriate response. After the last election, 'stupid' was the most common term in the liberal editorial pages describing the voters who put the Republicans in office. It goes on and on.
Some years ago, many newspapers ran headlines stating that polls show that most Americans support the war in Iraq. The journalists who wrote the stories found it hard to believe that people could be so dumb. After all, the journalists had been writing against the war steadily for a year or so. Why wasn't the public falling for their propaganda? So the journalists turned up the volume. A lot of their new propaganda centered around overblown accusations of corruption and atrocities. They never grew tired of calling George Bush and his supporters liars. They eventually got their own way and the country turned 180 degrees against George Bush and 'his' war. Since then the liberals, the left, and the progressives have focused on ungrounded accusations and name calling because it seems to work. The biggest name caller of all, Al Franken, was elected as their Senator by Minnesotans.
To liberals, the conservative view does not qualify as an 'alternative opinion" worthy of debate. And the Tea Party, they talk about silly, irrelevant things like founding fathers and the constitution. They are really stupid. Google "conservatives are stupid," "conservatives are Nazis," or "Tea Party shit." There will be plenty to read but little or nothing offered in the way of discussion of issues. Try it.
This blog was started to give scientific arguments refuting the arguments of the Man-made Global Warming proponents. Unfortunately, it is hard to find their scientific arguments. They have explained how the greenhouse effect works. However that theory was originally advanced to explain the warming of the early earth, hundreds of millions of years ago when the atmosphere was chiefly CO2. Now the atmosphere is far less that 1% composed of CO2. They do not give their figures and their assumptions to prove their theory that minuscule amounts of extra CO2 will have drastic affects. They have not attempted to advance any explanations because they cannot do it. Instead they call anyone who doubts them idiots, fools, or crooks.
The tea party and other conservatives give economic arguments to advance the proposition that a free market, without government involvement, is the only economic systems that improves the human condition and allows everyone to improve their lot. Instead of answering with arguments in favor of government control, socialism, or other economic system, they call the tea party racist.
The same thing happens with anyone who expresses opposition to governmentalized healthcare. Supposedly intelligent, educated people in the news media are the worse. Insults and verbal abuse of conservatives is considered to be a fine and appropriate response. After the last election, 'stupid' was the most common term in the liberal editorial pages describing the voters who put the Republicans in office. It goes on and on.
Some years ago, many newspapers ran headlines stating that polls show that most Americans support the war in Iraq. The journalists who wrote the stories found it hard to believe that people could be so dumb. After all, the journalists had been writing against the war steadily for a year or so. Why wasn't the public falling for their propaganda? So the journalists turned up the volume. A lot of their new propaganda centered around overblown accusations of corruption and atrocities. They never grew tired of calling George Bush and his supporters liars. They eventually got their own way and the country turned 180 degrees against George Bush and 'his' war. Since then the liberals, the left, and the progressives have focused on ungrounded accusations and name calling because it seems to work. The biggest name caller of all, Al Franken, was elected as their Senator by Minnesotans.
To liberals, the conservative view does not qualify as an 'alternative opinion" worthy of debate. And the Tea Party, they talk about silly, irrelevant things like founding fathers and the constitution. They are really stupid. Google "conservatives are stupid," "conservatives are Nazis," or "Tea Party shit." There will be plenty to read but little or nothing offered in the way of discussion of issues. Try it.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Will Republicans stick to their guns?
Republicans should agree to meet the Democrats half way to freedom, not half way to tyranny,(to paraphrase Mark Levin). As Ayn Rand explained, how can you compromise with someone who wants you to take poison? Should you agree to take only half the poison? You would still be dead. Bad economic policies are like poison. For example conservatives legislators should not agree to even a watered down form of cap-and-trade,such as government regulations to reduce 'carbon' emissions. (At least until they prove their man made global warming theory, which they never will, or they would have by now.)
Conservative Republicans agree that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and reduce its bureaucracy. However congress keeps passing more massively intrusive and expensive legislation. Sometimes, as with the food control bill, we hardly get a peep out of Republicans. In increasingly large numbers, they vote with the Democrats. What is going on?
Currently there is discussion regarding extension of current income tax rates. We seem to have three options: keep the current rates, increase rates for all brackets (which will happen automatically if they do nothing), or increase rate only for higher brackets. There is no option to actually reduce any one's rates. The Democrats themselves want to maintain current rates for lower brackets; not for economic but for political reasons, i.e. to buy votes. The Democrats say they want Republican input and support and that they are willing to compromise. However, the only compromise that they seem to be offering is option three above, that is raise tax rates on higher income brackets (over $250,000). Again for political reasons, to advance 'class' warfare propaganda. In a compromise deal they would get the higher rates that they want but they offer nothing in return. Where is the compromise there?
If Republicans agree to any higher rates on anyone, they should insist upon cuts in spending and reduction in bureaucracy. The taxes would still be economic poison, but spending cuts would to some extent counteract the economic damage of higher taxation.
Just today, there appears to be some movement for such a deal. Next week the president and Democrats in congress may agree to a keep the current rates for all wage earners in return for Republican agreement to extend unemployment benefits from two years to three. (Initially, before other extensions, the limit was half a year.) Extending these payments is bad economic policy because unemployment benefits create unemployment.
One other factor makes this potentially a bad deal. If the higher tax rates for all go into effect because of congressional inaction, the increase can be reversed by the new Republican congress next year. The Democratic Senate and the president would be under political pressure to agree. Therefore, The Republicans should not compromise now unless it is a good deal for the economy. For example, unemployment benefits for only an additional six months and at amounts reduced by about 30% would be one possibility.
The tea party has been leading the way toward freedom and away from the 'liberal', statist progressive agenda (which is becoming more and more to resemble the national socialist agendas of days past.) To remedy economic problems now as always, we need to focus on the philosophy of free enterprise. Economist Frederich Bastiat suggested the true path nearly 200 years ago to deal with the collapsed French economy: We have tried everything else, why not try freedom.
Conservative Republicans agree that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and reduce its bureaucracy. However congress keeps passing more massively intrusive and expensive legislation. Sometimes, as with the food control bill, we hardly get a peep out of Republicans. In increasingly large numbers, they vote with the Democrats. What is going on?
Currently there is discussion regarding extension of current income tax rates. We seem to have three options: keep the current rates, increase rates for all brackets (which will happen automatically if they do nothing), or increase rate only for higher brackets. There is no option to actually reduce any one's rates. The Democrats themselves want to maintain current rates for lower brackets; not for economic but for political reasons, i.e. to buy votes. The Democrats say they want Republican input and support and that they are willing to compromise. However, the only compromise that they seem to be offering is option three above, that is raise tax rates on higher income brackets (over $250,000). Again for political reasons, to advance 'class' warfare propaganda. In a compromise deal they would get the higher rates that they want but they offer nothing in return. Where is the compromise there?
If Republicans agree to any higher rates on anyone, they should insist upon cuts in spending and reduction in bureaucracy. The taxes would still be economic poison, but spending cuts would to some extent counteract the economic damage of higher taxation.
Just today, there appears to be some movement for such a deal. Next week the president and Democrats in congress may agree to a keep the current rates for all wage earners in return for Republican agreement to extend unemployment benefits from two years to three. (Initially, before other extensions, the limit was half a year.) Extending these payments is bad economic policy because unemployment benefits create unemployment.
One other factor makes this potentially a bad deal. If the higher tax rates for all go into effect because of congressional inaction, the increase can be reversed by the new Republican congress next year. The Democratic Senate and the president would be under political pressure to agree. Therefore, The Republicans should not compromise now unless it is a good deal for the economy. For example, unemployment benefits for only an additional six months and at amounts reduced by about 30% would be one possibility.
The tea party has been leading the way toward freedom and away from the 'liberal', statist progressive agenda (which is becoming more and more to resemble the national socialist agendas of days past.) To remedy economic problems now as always, we need to focus on the philosophy of free enterprise. Economist Frederich Bastiat suggested the true path nearly 200 years ago to deal with the collapsed French economy: We have tried everything else, why not try freedom.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
BHO and Demos Not Even Trying
According to the economic theories of Ludvig von Mises, it is impossible for government officials to make efficient economic decisions. That is because their decision making process cannot duplicate the millions of individual decisions made every day by buyers and sellers in the market for consumer and industrial goods. Only the marketplace can evaluate the constantly shifting and interdependent wants and needs of consumption and production. This is referred to as the economic calculations argument for the free market.
Mises concludes that the market, therefore, best supplies the most urgent needs of humanity. Others have argued that the government can indeed calculate the important economic choices that lead to the optimum satisfaction of human needs. Unfortunately, with the progressive mind set at work, such attempts at providing for our most urgent needs are seldom even attempted. Instead, huge amounts of resources are devoted to very limited ends. These narrow goals are based upon the theories, dreams, visions, and whims (not to mention profits), of small special interest groups. The long term consequences of their actions are inadequately evaluated. What we generally get is wasteful expenditure and a situation that is ultimately worse than it would have been without any government intervention.
Little wonder that none of the recent schemes have improved the economy. The situation is like that in France when Bastiat was moved to say, "We have tried everything else, why not try the easiest of all, freedom." That is why this blog listed that quotation as one of the first posts. When will they ever learn?
Mises concludes that the market, therefore, best supplies the most urgent needs of humanity. Others have argued that the government can indeed calculate the important economic choices that lead to the optimum satisfaction of human needs. Unfortunately, with the progressive mind set at work, such attempts at providing for our most urgent needs are seldom even attempted. Instead, huge amounts of resources are devoted to very limited ends. These narrow goals are based upon the theories, dreams, visions, and whims (not to mention profits), of small special interest groups. The long term consequences of their actions are inadequately evaluated. What we generally get is wasteful expenditure and a situation that is ultimately worse than it would have been without any government intervention.
Little wonder that none of the recent schemes have improved the economy. The situation is like that in France when Bastiat was moved to say, "We have tried everything else, why not try the easiest of all, freedom." That is why this blog listed that quotation as one of the first posts. When will they ever learn?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Elena Kagen and the Primacy of the Law
The title of this post does not refer to a book or law review article written by the Supreme Court nominee. It refers to something that she does not understand.
There are two books that the nominee should read:
Bureaucracy , by Ludvig von Mises (the full text is on line at von Mises Institute.), and
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. (a very short book written in 1850 in France. See other references to Bastiat on this blog).
Since I do not have time to give justice to this topic, I will give only two quotes. Please refer to the two short books, which say it all far better that this writer ever could.
"Primacy of the law means that no judge or officeholder has the right to interfere with any individual’s affairs or conditions unless a valid law requires or empowers him to do so. Nulla poena sine lege. No punishment unless ordered by a law. It is precisely the inability of the Nazis to understand the importance of this fundamental principle that qualifies them as antidemocratic. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany the judge has to come to his decision according to das gesunde Volksempfinden, i.e., in accordance with the sound feelings of the people. As the judge himself has to decide what the sound feelings of the people are, he is sovereign on his bench like the chieftain of a primitive tribe." von Mises, Op. Cite
"Justice Means Equal Rights." Bastiat, this is the title of a section of The Law.
The point is that the law is not decided with reference to personal goals for society. Otherwise, why aren't my own goals based upon my own ideology as good as anyone's? BHO's and presumably his nominee, Elena Kagen's ideology is Hegelian Dialectic Materialism. Mine is free enterprise and freedom in general. Theirs leads to forced redistribution to makes everyone equal. My leads to everyone, rich or poor, being treated equally under the law. Now is the time for choosing which direction to go.
There are two books that the nominee should read:
Bureaucracy , by Ludvig von Mises (the full text is on line at von Mises Institute.), and
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. (a very short book written in 1850 in France. See other references to Bastiat on this blog).
Since I do not have time to give justice to this topic, I will give only two quotes. Please refer to the two short books, which say it all far better that this writer ever could.
"Primacy of the law means that no judge or officeholder has the right to interfere with any individual’s affairs or conditions unless a valid law requires or empowers him to do so. Nulla poena sine lege. No punishment unless ordered by a law. It is precisely the inability of the Nazis to understand the importance of this fundamental principle that qualifies them as antidemocratic. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany the judge has to come to his decision according to das gesunde Volksempfinden, i.e., in accordance with the sound feelings of the people. As the judge himself has to decide what the sound feelings of the people are, he is sovereign on his bench like the chieftain of a primitive tribe." von Mises, Op. Cite
"Justice Means Equal Rights." Bastiat, this is the title of a section of The Law.
The point is that the law is not decided with reference to personal goals for society. Otherwise, why aren't my own goals based upon my own ideology as good as anyone's? BHO's and presumably his nominee, Elena Kagen's ideology is Hegelian Dialectic Materialism. Mine is free enterprise and freedom in general. Theirs leads to forced redistribution to makes everyone equal. My leads to everyone, rich or poor, being treated equally under the law. Now is the time for choosing which direction to go.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Obama Health Care Looters
Socialism has been described as killing the goose that laid the golden egg, with capitalism being the goose. Tonight, Mark Levin referred to Bastiat's description of the fruits of socialism as plunder. What happens when there is nothing left to plunder? Mr. Levin also used the metaphor of locust stripping a field of grain. When there is no more grain, what do the locust socialists propose to do?
I think of socialism as legalised looting. What happens when the looters have broken all the windows and taken all the merchandise? Will the store restock the shelves so that the looters can come back for more? I don't think so, nor will factories continue to produce just so their production can be taken from them. The socialists think nothing of attacking corporations who produce most of the world's goods. They do not know how they will continue to produce without corporations but they seem to think they can do it. Actually, they do not seem to have even thought ahead that far. We have said it before: capitalism is the most efficient way to provide for the most urgent needs of mankind.
Senator Murry again treated us to the story of Marcelas Owens whose mother died because she lost her health insurance. I have not heard the press explain this story in any more detail. It seems to me that the mother could have obtained emergency life saving care if she had sought it out. Both the states and charities provide ample free care for the needy. What is instructive to me in this story is this: Hypothetically, the mother required some advanced procedure that was available in this country. The reason that the procedure was available is because our health care system with its corporations and insurance companies provided that procedure. They did the research and development, which was financed by investors who believed that through insurance and other means, consumers would be able to pay for their service. If our health care had been socialised years ago, the procedure would not even exist. Even if she had state supplied coverage, the procedure would never have been produced so she, and the rest of us, would be out of luck.
It is hard for the victims of socialist propaganda to see the error in their ways. It would require the ability to envision what might and could have been.
I think of socialism as legalised looting. What happens when the looters have broken all the windows and taken all the merchandise? Will the store restock the shelves so that the looters can come back for more? I don't think so, nor will factories continue to produce just so their production can be taken from them. The socialists think nothing of attacking corporations who produce most of the world's goods. They do not know how they will continue to produce without corporations but they seem to think they can do it. Actually, they do not seem to have even thought ahead that far. We have said it before: capitalism is the most efficient way to provide for the most urgent needs of mankind.
Senator Murry again treated us to the story of Marcelas Owens whose mother died because she lost her health insurance. I have not heard the press explain this story in any more detail. It seems to me that the mother could have obtained emergency life saving care if she had sought it out. Both the states and charities provide ample free care for the needy. What is instructive to me in this story is this: Hypothetically, the mother required some advanced procedure that was available in this country. The reason that the procedure was available is because our health care system with its corporations and insurance companies provided that procedure. They did the research and development, which was financed by investors who believed that through insurance and other means, consumers would be able to pay for their service. If our health care had been socialised years ago, the procedure would not even exist. Even if she had state supplied coverage, the procedure would never have been produced so she, and the rest of us, would be out of luck.
It is hard for the victims of socialist propaganda to see the error in their ways. It would require the ability to envision what might and could have been.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Rerun: Socalized Medicine
"If all I am given for an option is socialism [or the stutus quo], which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.
I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.
The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars."
/This quotation appealed to me. I found it in of one of my posts from last year/
While we're at it, here's a rerun of another quotation:
"We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom." (Frederic Bastiat)
One of the economists whose theories led to the Austrian School of Economics (See von Mises Institute for the definition of this), came to the conclusion that the then current bad economic idea (socialism) had so much support that it must run its course. Then from the ashes of the destruction that would result, more sensible ideas would gain acceptance. Unfortunately, it seems he was predicting World War I and II. There must be a better way to a solution.
I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.
The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars."
/This quotation appealed to me. I found it in of one of my posts from last year/
While we're at it, here's a rerun of another quotation:
"We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom." (Frederic Bastiat)
One of the economists whose theories led to the Austrian School of Economics (See von Mises Institute for the definition of this), came to the conclusion that the then current bad economic idea (socialism) had so much support that it must run its course. Then from the ashes of the destruction that would result, more sensible ideas would gain acceptance. Unfortunately, it seems he was predicting World War I and II. There must be a better way to a solution.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Krugman Speaks (in His Native Tongue)
In his column appearing in the Seattle Times today, Paul Krugman says that the usual suspects (i.e. conservatives) will go wild if there is progress at the Copenhagen global warming conclave. He also thinks there will be cries that this is a vast scientific conspiracy which will destroy jobs and economic growth. In fact conservatives have been a little wild and more that a little angry. They have lately been wild with enthusiasm that the recent "climate-gate" revelations show that there is indeed a vast conspiracy that is finally being exposed. They have also been angry that such a hoax continues to be perpetrated against the citizens of this country and of the world. For myself, I am somewhat numb. I have seen too much of the ignorance of those who are the willing victims of this hoax to feel much outrage anymore. I still believe that global warming ranks in the top ten in all the history of tyranny against the mind of man. Satan in the Garden being number one and Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and a few like minded others vying for the other top spots. Unfortunately, for the same reasons that Mr. Krugman is optimistic, I am growing pessimistic.
Of course, Mr. Krugman is guilty of advancing and perpetuating egregious violence against reason, but I do not blame him. He is locked into a mind set that has hopelessly befuddled his thinking (related to "Keyneseism"). He advances several arguments in favor of the economic benefits that would accrue to us if we adopted a policy of cap-and-trade to fight global warming. To be generous to him, his thesis is probably better stated as something like, "cap-and-trade would cause far less decline than has been claimed by its detractors." It is a little difficult to say if maybe he does think there could be a net gain when he states that businesses will, "be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon." Actually, he means that they will mitigate their losses under cap-and-trade by "burning" less carbon. The only ones to profit will be those in the marketing of the carbon credits, i.e. the tax collectors
In any event, in his reasoning he falls prey to one of the most pervasive economic fallacies, the fallacy of the broken window. This was named by Bastiat and referenced by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. The Nobel Laureate, Mr. Krugman claims that there can be economic gains by investment in development of various ways to emit less greenhouse gas. This is like the investment that Bastiat talks about to repair the broken window. The manufactures and the installer will all benefit by the "investments" made in repairing the broken window. They will spend their new gains, thus stimulation the economy. Therefore would it not be beneficial to break more, of even all windows? Especially, as claimed by Mr. K, at a time of economic downturn? The answer is: No.
The reason for this is not difficult to discern. The resources that go into the repair of the window would have been used for something else if the window had not been broken. If for some reason, no windows were broken for a year, we would experience an upsurge in the production of other economic goods. Perhaps the capitol, labor, and natural resources used in the production and installation of windows would go to the building of new houses. (The exact composition of the new goods would depend upon the what purchasers in the market demanded, for the consumer is king in the unimpeded market.) If more windows are broken, we cannot say what would be lost for we can never know what might have been. That so few can see this simple fact is what causes my pessimism.
With the case of global warming, the atmosphere is what is broken, according to Al Gore and the warmies. Much of the scarce recources of planet earth have to go to stopping the damage to the atmosphere, according to them. In the opinion of the conservative wing, we do not even get a new window, since the atmosphere is not really broken and our efforts will not fix anything.
Now Mr. K also says that to believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax, one would have to believe in a vast scientific conspiracy. That may be so. Yet to believe as Mr. K does, one would have to believe in a conspiracy of all the fossil fuel users around the globe. He says that we can reduce emissions at relatively low cost by, "improved insulation, more efficient appliances, more fuel efficient cars and trucks, greater use of solar, wind, and nuclear power and much, much more." All we need is the economic incentive of cap-and-trade to find and develop all these new ways. However I would point out that we already have the incentive of $70 to $100 per gallon oil. I would think that, unless there is some vast conspiracy among oil users to keep using oil, we would already be expending vast amounts of resources to use less. Yet petroleum, coal, natural gas, and firewood sill provide maybe 70% of the world energy needs. If significant use of alternatives and conservation had "a relatively low cost" why aren't they here now?
According to economists, which I now perceive Mr. K is not, the answer to that question is a little more subtle and involves the concept of economic decisions being made at the margin, and diminishing returns. Suffice it to say, that even common sense allows us to say that all decisions involve a trade-off between alternative actions. Whatever those trade-offs are, they cannot be as cost-free as the cap-and-traders want us to believe. I really don't know how much solar energy development would costs, but if there would be a great return to low cost efforts in that direction, it seems that we would have a lot more of it now.
If the schemes of the warmies come to fruition, those of us not among the elite architects of the conspiracy, will not like the result. However, if we are so ignorant as to be deceived by the likes to Al Gore and Paul Krugman, then we were literally made to be sold.
Of course, Mr. Krugman is guilty of advancing and perpetuating egregious violence against reason, but I do not blame him. He is locked into a mind set that has hopelessly befuddled his thinking (related to "Keyneseism"). He advances several arguments in favor of the economic benefits that would accrue to us if we adopted a policy of cap-and-trade to fight global warming. To be generous to him, his thesis is probably better stated as something like, "cap-and-trade would cause far less decline than has been claimed by its detractors." It is a little difficult to say if maybe he does think there could be a net gain when he states that businesses will, "be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon." Actually, he means that they will mitigate their losses under cap-and-trade by "burning" less carbon. The only ones to profit will be those in the marketing of the carbon credits, i.e. the tax collectors
In any event, in his reasoning he falls prey to one of the most pervasive economic fallacies, the fallacy of the broken window. This was named by Bastiat and referenced by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. The Nobel Laureate, Mr. Krugman claims that there can be economic gains by investment in development of various ways to emit less greenhouse gas. This is like the investment that Bastiat talks about to repair the broken window. The manufactures and the installer will all benefit by the "investments" made in repairing the broken window. They will spend their new gains, thus stimulation the economy. Therefore would it not be beneficial to break more, of even all windows? Especially, as claimed by Mr. K, at a time of economic downturn? The answer is: No.
The reason for this is not difficult to discern. The resources that go into the repair of the window would have been used for something else if the window had not been broken. If for some reason, no windows were broken for a year, we would experience an upsurge in the production of other economic goods. Perhaps the capitol, labor, and natural resources used in the production and installation of windows would go to the building of new houses. (The exact composition of the new goods would depend upon the what purchasers in the market demanded, for the consumer is king in the unimpeded market.) If more windows are broken, we cannot say what would be lost for we can never know what might have been. That so few can see this simple fact is what causes my pessimism.
With the case of global warming, the atmosphere is what is broken, according to Al Gore and the warmies. Much of the scarce recources of planet earth have to go to stopping the damage to the atmosphere, according to them. In the opinion of the conservative wing, we do not even get a new window, since the atmosphere is not really broken and our efforts will not fix anything.
Now Mr. K also says that to believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax, one would have to believe in a vast scientific conspiracy. That may be so. Yet to believe as Mr. K does, one would have to believe in a conspiracy of all the fossil fuel users around the globe. He says that we can reduce emissions at relatively low cost by, "improved insulation, more efficient appliances, more fuel efficient cars and trucks, greater use of solar, wind, and nuclear power and much, much more." All we need is the economic incentive of cap-and-trade to find and develop all these new ways. However I would point out that we already have the incentive of $70 to $100 per gallon oil. I would think that, unless there is some vast conspiracy among oil users to keep using oil, we would already be expending vast amounts of resources to use less. Yet petroleum, coal, natural gas, and firewood sill provide maybe 70% of the world energy needs. If significant use of alternatives and conservation had "a relatively low cost" why aren't they here now?
According to economists, which I now perceive Mr. K is not, the answer to that question is a little more subtle and involves the concept of economic decisions being made at the margin, and diminishing returns. Suffice it to say, that even common sense allows us to say that all decisions involve a trade-off between alternative actions. Whatever those trade-offs are, they cannot be as cost-free as the cap-and-traders want us to believe. I really don't know how much solar energy development would costs, but if there would be a great return to low cost efforts in that direction, it seems that we would have a lot more of it now.
If the schemes of the warmies come to fruition, those of us not among the elite architects of the conspiracy, will not like the result. However, if we are so ignorant as to be deceived by the likes to Al Gore and Paul Krugman, then we were literally made to be sold.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Can You Imagine?
…and so they stopped and rested on a rock conveniently low
And all the little oysters stood and waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus, said, “to talk of many things,
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings
And why the sea is boiling hot and weather pigs have wings.”
-- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass
Which is to say, time to get down to the nitty gritty. A socialist in name only, president Barack Obama, knows instinctively which side the bread is buttered on. He came out today with renewed attacks on special interests. Of course, he is referring to special special interests, that is, those not already in his camp. That would currently be the health care insurance companies. He is definitely not talking about General Electric, which is on the global warming gravy train. He is not talking about the United Steel Workers, whose boss he made a Commissar and which, along with other construction industries, are economic stimulus payees. Apparently he doesn't mean big drug makers or ARRP or the AMA. He is certainly not talking about auto, banking, political action groups, community organizers, or government unions who he are in his back pocket ( or his front pockets since the back ones are overflowing). There’s hardly anyone or anything left to threaten or pay off, except for us, the regular taxpayers of this country.
However, and unfortunately for him and most professional politicians, at the town halls and tea parties, the people have spoken. What they said is not necessarily what any one person or faction has said or would say. Nevertheless, what they said is clear. They want change but not BHO’s kind of change. They want actual accountability and openness, not the kind promised but never delivered by politicians of any party or any era. What they want most of all is the end of a corrupt system that they see as enriching the political and corporate participants at their expense.
What they complain about goes by many names: corruption and payoffs come to mind; but also executive bonuses, bail-outs, stimulus packages, campaign contributions, and earmarks are on their hit list. The later are openly the stock and trade of the professional politician. Governor Blaggovich was a prime example of the former: the corrupt politician par excellance. He made no excuses for selling office. Charlie Wrangle, currently under investigation by congress, is a current example of political corruption of the ‘look the other way, wink and a nod’ variety. That is, everyone knows it and ‘every one does it type’. He took it a little too far so he has to wear the scarlet ‘C’. If he isn't reelected, he probably has a lobbyist job waiting. However, maybe, just maybe, at long last and finally, the informed and sovereign voter is saying no more to the pervasive and systematic spoil system that is our political system from top to bottom.
This would be real change. The lobbyist and campaign contribution is the live blood of the current system. How to change without creating something worse has always been the difficulty. Can you imagine no lobbyists, non-millionaire congress members, citizen legislators?
It is hard to imagine a no lobbyists system because of the informational roll they play. Legislation regarding major segments of commerce is too complicated for anyone not in that segment of commerce to understand. What congress has been giving us are 1,000 plus page monstrosities that are written by corporate lobbyists or by the most partisan elements of the party in power.
(Foot note: Of course it seems to me that it is mostly the Democrat party that does this. See the stimulus package that was written by communist Van Jones and contains huge grants for radical Party activists. Compare that to the Patriot Act. The worse the Democrats seem to have found in that bill is powers to eavesdrop on terrorist communication, powers law enforcement already had regarding organized crime. By the way, it recently occurred to me that there probably was actual communication of domestic political groups that they definitely did not want heard. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise in free speech for some of the left.)
These massive omnibus bills generally provide specifically for preemption of state law. That means the laws passed by our state representatives and the common law developed over centuries by the give and take of our court system can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen in Washington. If a faction, whether a group with some political clout or an industry group represented by lobbyists, has their ambitions stymied by state law, they can resort to federal legislation. Of course it helps to have cooperative federal judges. This is in fact becoming the favored modus operandi of some political and industry groups. (i.e. environmentalists with just about everything they want; and yes, the insurance industry and medical lobbies as with the EISA and HIPAA.) Sometimes these laws impose massive regulation, sometimes they free some practices from federal and/or state regulation. Sometimes they put roadblocks in the way of redress of grievances. As stated elsewhere in this blog, this type of action is not necessarily what is meant by free market economic policies, although there are some who hide their sharp business practices behind that claim.
If there were no lobbyist for special interests, what would fill the power vacuum? Could we trust the press, the lawyers, and communistic Party Commissars of Barack Obama to give us a legitimate representative democracy? The founders of this nation could imagine a democracy and they embodied it into the framework and checks and balances of the constitution. (The Commissars probably do not fit in that framework, a free press does, and lawyers and our jury system will always be needed to fight against self serving bureaucratic regulation in government and industry.) The constitution has been called an imperfect document. Ben Franklin said that the constitution gave us a republic, if we could keep it. Thomas Jefferson said that every generation had to protect and earn their freedom or they would lose it. So I guess that is the best we can do. It has served us well so far; we had better busy ourselves with keeping it. What to do with the likes of ENRON, Van Jones, ACORN lobbyists, GE lobbyists, Oil lobbyists, Green Peace lobbyists... We must exercise discrimination, judgement, and common sense. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
And all the little oysters stood and waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus, said, “to talk of many things,
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings
And why the sea is boiling hot and weather pigs have wings.”
-- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass
Which is to say, time to get down to the nitty gritty. A socialist in name only, president Barack Obama, knows instinctively which side the bread is buttered on. He came out today with renewed attacks on special interests. Of course, he is referring to special special interests, that is, those not already in his camp. That would currently be the health care insurance companies. He is definitely not talking about General Electric, which is on the global warming gravy train. He is not talking about the United Steel Workers, whose boss he made a Commissar and which, along with other construction industries, are economic stimulus payees. Apparently he doesn't mean big drug makers or ARRP or the AMA. He is certainly not talking about auto, banking, political action groups, community organizers, or government unions who he are in his back pocket ( or his front pockets since the back ones are overflowing). There’s hardly anyone or anything left to threaten or pay off, except for us, the regular taxpayers of this country.
However, and unfortunately for him and most professional politicians, at the town halls and tea parties, the people have spoken. What they said is not necessarily what any one person or faction has said or would say. Nevertheless, what they said is clear. They want change but not BHO’s kind of change. They want actual accountability and openness, not the kind promised but never delivered by politicians of any party or any era. What they want most of all is the end of a corrupt system that they see as enriching the political and corporate participants at their expense.
What they complain about goes by many names: corruption and payoffs come to mind; but also executive bonuses, bail-outs, stimulus packages, campaign contributions, and earmarks are on their hit list. The later are openly the stock and trade of the professional politician. Governor Blaggovich was a prime example of the former: the corrupt politician par excellance. He made no excuses for selling office. Charlie Wrangle, currently under investigation by congress, is a current example of political corruption of the ‘look the other way, wink and a nod’ variety. That is, everyone knows it and ‘every one does it type’. He took it a little too far so he has to wear the scarlet ‘C’. If he isn't reelected, he probably has a lobbyist job waiting. However, maybe, just maybe, at long last and finally, the informed and sovereign voter is saying no more to the pervasive and systematic spoil system that is our political system from top to bottom.
This would be real change. The lobbyist and campaign contribution is the live blood of the current system. How to change without creating something worse has always been the difficulty. Can you imagine no lobbyists, non-millionaire congress members, citizen legislators?
It is hard to imagine a no lobbyists system because of the informational roll they play. Legislation regarding major segments of commerce is too complicated for anyone not in that segment of commerce to understand. What congress has been giving us are 1,000 plus page monstrosities that are written by corporate lobbyists or by the most partisan elements of the party in power.
(Foot note: Of course it seems to me that it is mostly the Democrat party that does this. See the stimulus package that was written by communist Van Jones and contains huge grants for radical Party activists. Compare that to the Patriot Act. The worse the Democrats seem to have found in that bill is powers to eavesdrop on terrorist communication, powers law enforcement already had regarding organized crime. By the way, it recently occurred to me that there probably was actual communication of domestic political groups that they definitely did not want heard. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise in free speech for some of the left.)
These massive omnibus bills generally provide specifically for preemption of state law. That means the laws passed by our state representatives and the common law developed over centuries by the give and take of our court system can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen in Washington. If a faction, whether a group with some political clout or an industry group represented by lobbyists, has their ambitions stymied by state law, they can resort to federal legislation. Of course it helps to have cooperative federal judges. This is in fact becoming the favored modus operandi of some political and industry groups. (i.e. environmentalists with just about everything they want; and yes, the insurance industry and medical lobbies as with the EISA and HIPAA.) Sometimes these laws impose massive regulation, sometimes they free some practices from federal and/or state regulation. Sometimes they put roadblocks in the way of redress of grievances. As stated elsewhere in this blog, this type of action is not necessarily what is meant by free market economic policies, although there are some who hide their sharp business practices behind that claim.
If there were no lobbyist for special interests, what would fill the power vacuum? Could we trust the press, the lawyers, and communistic Party Commissars of Barack Obama to give us a legitimate representative democracy? The founders of this nation could imagine a democracy and they embodied it into the framework and checks and balances of the constitution. (The Commissars probably do not fit in that framework, a free press does, and lawyers and our jury system will always be needed to fight against self serving bureaucratic regulation in government and industry.) The constitution has been called an imperfect document. Ben Franklin said that the constitution gave us a republic, if we could keep it. Thomas Jefferson said that every generation had to protect and earn their freedom or they would lose it. So I guess that is the best we can do. It has served us well so far; we had better busy ourselves with keeping it. What to do with the likes of ENRON, Van Jones, ACORN lobbyists, GE lobbyists, Oil lobbyists, Green Peace lobbyists... We must exercise discrimination, judgement, and common sense. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A Few Quotations
"... the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." -- Frederic Bastiat
"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth." Frederic Bastiat /How well said, how true today./
"Do what you will, gentlemen; you cannot give money to some without taking it away from others. If you absolutely insist on draining the taxpayer dry, well and good; but at lest do not treat him like a fool. Do not tell him: 'I am taking this money from you to repay you for what I have already taken from you." -- Frederic Bastiat /BHO take heed/
one more:
"...competition in modern society is far from playing its natural role. Our laws inhibit it at least as much as they encourage it; and to answer the question whether inequality is due to the presence or the absence of competition, we need only observe who the men are who occupy the lime light and dazzle us with their scandalous fortunes, to assure ourselves that inequality, in so far as it is artificial and unjust, is based on conquest, monopolies, restrictions, privileged positions, high government posts and influence, administrative deals, loans from the public funds -- with all of which competition has no connection." -- Frederic Bastiat
"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth." Frederic Bastiat /How well said, how true today./
"Do what you will, gentlemen; you cannot give money to some without taking it away from others. If you absolutely insist on draining the taxpayer dry, well and good; but at lest do not treat him like a fool. Do not tell him: 'I am taking this money from you to repay you for what I have already taken from you." -- Frederic Bastiat /BHO take heed/
one more:
"...competition in modern society is far from playing its natural role. Our laws inhibit it at least as much as they encourage it; and to answer the question whether inequality is due to the presence or the absence of competition, we need only observe who the men are who occupy the lime light and dazzle us with their scandalous fortunes, to assure ourselves that inequality, in so far as it is artificial and unjust, is based on conquest, monopolies, restrictions, privileged positions, high government posts and influence, administrative deals, loans from the public funds -- with all of which competition has no connection." -- Frederic Bastiat
Friday, July 17, 2009
A Man Alone: Frederic Bastiat
Radio host, Glen Beck, mussed that current events in these United States most resemble the final years of the Roman Empire. (Glen Beck is over dramatic if anything.) Although he may have a point in some respects, I do not think the downfall was precipitated by a radical departure from the status quo. I always thought that Rome's problems, although similar to ours, came on as a gradual decay. I do not know if there was a dramatic political change that greatly accelerated the trend, as is now occurring here.
I believe that a better comparison is to France prior to and during the 1848 Revolutions. Government Corruption, natural disasters, and economic downturn precipitated radical change. As changes occurred more and more rapidly, the corruption and economy worsened. I am in the process of reading a book on Frederic Bastiat, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, who was active as a political figure during those times. He was on a finance committee. While France was in the midst of more financial crises, Bastiat stood firmly against all of the socialist programs that had been adopted earlier and were being daily augmented. As I am just now reading the book, I will clarify and up-date this.
I had known about M. Bastiat from his writing and especially his aphorisms regarding politics and economics. I will put some in my next post. The book is, "Frederic Bastiat A Man Alone." It was written in 1971 by George Charles Roche III, published by Arlington House in their Architects of Freedom series.
I believe that a better comparison is to France prior to and during the 1848 Revolutions. Government Corruption, natural disasters, and economic downturn precipitated radical change. As changes occurred more and more rapidly, the corruption and economy worsened. I am in the process of reading a book on Frederic Bastiat, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, who was active as a political figure during those times. He was on a finance committee. While France was in the midst of more financial crises, Bastiat stood firmly against all of the socialist programs that had been adopted earlier and were being daily augmented. As I am just now reading the book, I will clarify and up-date this.
I had known about M. Bastiat from his writing and especially his aphorisms regarding politics and economics. I will put some in my next post. The book is, "Frederic Bastiat A Man Alone." It was written in 1971 by George Charles Roche III, published by Arlington House in their Architects of Freedom series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)