The Electorate not Media Matters

According to Glenn Beck, "Media Matters," a liberal blog, has launched an attack against him and the Fox news organisation. Check the following link to see that he is correct:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201010290036

This blog has no fundamental disagreement with the issues that Media Matters raises in this article. That is, we agree that they are issues. We differ diametrically in our view of these issues. In fact, what Media Matters accuses Fox of is often exactly what this blog (and the Tea Party conservatives) say that they (and the Statist Progressive Left) are doing. For example, Media Matters says:

"They [Fox] do all of this while continuing their time-honored tradition of tearing down liberal initiatives and politicians with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories..."

So, they are correct that Fox attempts to tear down liberal initiatives. Fox does it by telling the truth about liberals and their initiatives. It is the left, presumably with the endorsement of Media Matters, that uses shameless smears and fabricates stories. Just look at the recent statements from the left regarding conservative women candidates, which have been exposed as farcical fabrications and certainly smears and shameless too. Look at all the lies we were told about the Health Care bill with hardly a peep of objection from the mainstream media.

Media Matters' article also states:

"Right out of the gate, Fox led the charge against the stimulus, eschewing the views of economists to attack deficit spending and rewriting history to attack FDR and the New Deal.
The network was certainly "the voice of the opposition" on health care reform, spewing countless falsehoods about both our broken health care system and the proposals to fix it while promoting disruptions of health care town halls and GOP initiatives to kill reform."

Here again we have clear lines of demarcation. We believe one thing and they believe the opposite. Fox, Sarah Palin's Common Sense Conservatives, The Tea Party, me, and innumerable others did not want so called economic stimuli from government spending, which some economist believe in. We have discussed John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, and Paul Krugman (a real bearded Marxist), for example. Other economists, such as Milton Friedman and Ludvig von Mises, disagree. They do not so much eschew the opposing statist progressive views as they have study them in depth then refute and reject them. That is true of the views and initiatives of FDR and of BHO.


That Fox and the afore mentioned conservatives oppose the so called health care and wall street reforms is also no secret. [Ed Note: This blog opposes Cap-and-Trade most of all.] In a free society with a free press, the public hears both sides and decides. Media Matters would have us hear only their side. It brings to mind the bible story of David and Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba and desired her, even though she was married, the prophet Nathan (I think that's who it was) rebuked him. He compared King David to a rich man with many flocks who sees a poor man and wants his only lamb. The left is supported by many large media outlets, the only comparably strong voice of dissent is Fox. To Media Matters and its masters, that is too many.

William F Buckley observed that the left says they want to hear both sides, but they are shocked to hear that there is another side. We know who the other side is and what it stands for and we do not want it.

Hostility against Every Tyranny over the Mind of Man

Regarding the Party Like and Obamaton video, the argument has been advanced that its heart is in the right place but not its ‘head’. That is, (I restate the argument): the intellectual underpinnings of free market conservatism are deficient, even though the principal of liberty that it enthusiastically espouses has universal truth and appeals to the human spirit. That argument is also made with regard to the Tea Party.

This seems to me a reversal of the ‘mean spirited conservative' claim but oh well, it certainly deserves to be address. Unfortunately, It has been addressed but to no avail. The corpus of classical liberalism with its ‘heart’ roots in the human spirit yearning to be free, and its ‘head’ roots in the writings of the Age of Enlightenment, which hearkened back to the democratic principles of ancient Greece, the egalitarianism of the Gospel, and the humanism best articulated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, first gave it voice. Its salient political principal may be that 'no man is above the law.' That is, that those in power cannot bend the law to their will, but must abide by it themselves: they rule at the pleasure of the governed. The economic voice of this 'liberalism' reached its heights in the theories and restatements of the ‘Last Knight of Freedom,’ Ludwig von Mises. Professor Mises, Austrian by birth, immigrated (escaped) to the US in the 1930’s. He is the intellectual guiding light of the Libertarian Party, conservative free market thought, and of this blog. His great work, Human Action, summarizes and systematizes most of the ideas of the 'Austrian School' of economics. Professor von Mises wrote many other books on specific political and economic topics, (such as Socialism and Bureaucracy, which have been quoted in this blog). The von Mises Institute has free on-line versions of most of his works along with daily essays.

I could go on at length, but the point is that the free market and the primacy of law are two of Western Civilizations treasured principals. These are what the Tea Party believes in and what they believe are in danger of being lost. Agree with them or not, it seems that these principals are the intellectual match of any tradition in learning. Those who dismiss them out of hand surly have not delved deep enough to realize the majesty of that which they are addressing. Whether they know it of not, it is the classical liberal tradition that the Tea Party espouses. Tyranny, of course, is an older tradition. It is Statist Progresivism, the modern progeny of that tradition, that the present darkness embraces.

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?

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.

Exploitation: By the Rich or the Government?

Newscasters of the mainstream press (or lamestream press, as Sarah calls it) never tire of reminding us of the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to wall street executives. They thereby gain a lot of public support for their favored policies and politicians. It is hard to argue that those bonuses are legitimately earned and good for their companies or for the economy as a whole. However, economic and business realities explain those sky-high payments. Without knowing many details about the operations of investment banking and other high level financial firms, such payments must also result from some form of government intervention in the market place. That is usually the case with seemingly inexplicable market phenomena.

Regarding the business explanations, there was a recent article in Atlantic Magazine that offered some insight. (Why Goldman Always Wins by Megan McArdle) The author, who had served as an intern at a large firm while a business student at an Ivy League school, stated that even the interns seemed to be paid much more than market forces justified. The fact of the matter is that businesses that make a large stock offering to the public are willing to pay top price because they have so much at stake. Multimillion share sales of stock, such as an initial public offerings, are one-time, make it or break it shots. An executive with experience, contacts, and a track record can bring in the business and a large salary is not only justified, but necessary to obtain his services. The market, as always, tries to find ways to do things for less. Google for example, did their initial public offering via the web. They met with only limited success, partly because the large investment banks, wanting to discredit the completion, did not participate. With a wall street deal of this type, presumably the bankers have plenty of contacts who they can place large chunks of stock with. Without those deals, Google got a lower price than they would have with the banks' help. The market did push the price way up later, but those gains went to the on-line investors, not to the original owners.

The high premium paid for the services of top wall street players can be understood by this sort of explanation. The second rate bankers, who charge lower fees, are just not worth the gamble with a high stakes deal. How did they ever come to dominate the market to such an extent that other firms cannot compete? It seems that government regulation must have made it difficult for others to enter the market and build a competing business. It should be noted that size is not the only factor, or even the most important factor. Of course, a large bank can prop-up a market itself when they buy with their own and with customers funds, but it seems that it is the individual with the contacts who is the indispensable deal maker. Therefore, government limitations on the size of a bank would, if anything, increase the value of key players.

This is a matter of economics, not of class warfare, as the Congressional Democrats and BHO tell us. Marx tried to blame our economic woes on class exploitation and he failed. The true liberals, the free market thinkers, explained that exploitation can only take place with government help and they proved it.

See the Ludvig von Mises Institute article of yesterday, from which the following is a quote:

"The implications of this insight are profound. The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests. This harmony, however, is transformed into conflict whenever government intervenes. If a business can get the government to keep out competitors, customers no longer have the ability to take their dollars elsewhere. Then, and only then, are companies in a position to raise prices or turn out shoddy products." -- David Osterfeld http://mises.org/daily/4062

Another Re-Run: Mises on Socialism

I couldn't resist a rerun from a post from last Summer:

Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism

We need more information about what is meant by "socialism" and why its opponents are so vehement in their opposition. Sorry I can't provide that right at the moment. Stay tuned.

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.

Blame It on the Bankers

Nothing new but I spoke to someone yesterday who explained that the bank/economy melt down was all brought on by greed. I spoke to him at the gym. He's a doctor so you would think that he would know better. This time he is saying it is the greed of Lehman Brothers executives that started it all. He saw it on a Canadian Broadcasting program. I asked him a few questions but I am not up for such arguments as I have had them so often. I thought later that I should have asked him when they will be broadcasting the rebuttal. Surely they should give both sides a fair chance. If Canadian Broadcasting is anything like Public Broadcasting in the USA, there's not a chance. I am sure my friend would not care and understand. He would say that there can be no rebuttal. (See my W. F. Buckley quotation.)

I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.

By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)

My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.

When will they ever learn?

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

Some Quotations Re: Government Control v. Capitalism

"Yes we can." -- Barack Obama

"...as early as 1854 Gossen knew 'that only through private property is the measure found for determining the quantities of each commodity which it would be best to produce under given conditions. Therefore, the central authority, proposed by the communists, for the distribution of the various tasks and their rewards, would very soon find that it had taken on a job the solution of which far surpasses the abilities of individual men.' (Gossen, Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs, new Edition, Berlin 1889, p. 231)." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 2009 Auburn, Alabama; foot note p. 135. /First published in Austria in 1922./

"The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism." Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 135.

"Yes we can't." -- Alfred E Newman

"The literateur and the bureaucrat, both alien to an atmosphere of business activity, are filled with envy and rage when they think of fortunate speculators and successful entrepreneurs." -- Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 205

"Greed and profits are the problem; Capitalism is a failed system..." -- Almost everyone lately (also Karl Marx)

"Therefore State Socialism and planned economies, which want to maintain private property in name and law, but in fact, because they subordinate the power of disposing to State orders, want to socialize property, are socialist in the full sense." Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 276

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

"What are you talken about, Joe?" -- Vice President Joe Biden (and many others). (God love him, he's almost a regular Joe.)

Economic Freedom

“Special interests…can think of the most ingenious reasons why they should be the objects of special solicitude. Their spokesmen present a plan in their favor; and it seems at first so absurd that disinterested writers do not trouble to expose it.” So begins Chapter 13 of Henry Hazlitt’s 1946 book, Economics in One Lesson. He was speaking of the folly of the New Deal agricultural price fixing scheme which FDR wanted and got. This chapter is an informative example of how government meddling causes all kinds of problems that need to be fixed by further meddling. Each step along the way impoverished the farmers and consumers who it was suppose to help and took away personal choice and liberty.
When will they ever learn? Apparently the current administration learned a lot about how demagogues (those who gain control by playing on public fears) can maneuver into positions of power and profit. The chief instrumentality is a gullible and/or duplicitous press. Our times have become very interesting for those who are interested in economics theories. For years “free market fringe economists" have been explaining how a demagogue or a party apparatus can take control. They explained how propaganda is the main tool. Promises of great prosperity at the cost of a little freedom only lead to less prosperity followed by more loss of freedom. I thought they were talking about South American dictatorships or European fascists. It is interesting to see it now play out with only the thinnest of disguise.
Henry Hazlitt’s book gives several examples and works out the logical consequences of government intervention in the economy. It was meant to be and is an introduction to how economics works. This is simple stuff that many politicians don’t want you to know. This has really never been widely debated because one side in the debate controls the forum of any debate. Mr. Hazlitt’s books are for sale at the regular on-line outlets and at some bookstores. The Ludwig von Mises Institute specializes in that sort of book.
(Professor von Mises, The Last Knight of Freedom, escaped from Austria just before the Nazi take-over and taught and wrote in this country. His work systematizes the school of thought known as the Austrian School. He shows over and over in his work that only economic freedom can make us politically free and prosperous.)