Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.
The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.
BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.
These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.
Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Monday, October 5, 2009
Can We Realy Share the Wealth?
My answer is: No, not without destroying the wealth. Every redistribution plan ultimately does not work. Not in the long run, not in the medium run, or even much beyond today. Analysis of the outcome of plans to redirect economic activity from the free market shows that eventual collapse of any such plan is inevitable. It may not be obvious because a dozen other plans will usually be adopted to correct the outcome of the initial plan but they always result in the same thing: less wealth or impoverishment for everyone and back to the drawing board.
This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.
Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.
(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)
I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:
This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.
Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.
(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)
I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:
"Listening to Mr. Chodorov, you won't
get any meaningless gabble about "Right" and "Left," or "progressive'" and
"reactionary," or liberalism as a philosophy of the "middle of the road." Mr. Chodorov deals in far more fundamental
distinctions. There is, for example, the Chodorovian distinction between social
power and political power. Social power develops from the creation of wealth by
individuals working alone or in voluntary concert. Political power, on the other
hand, grows by the forcible appropriation of the individual's social power.""People on Our Side: Frank Chodorov"
Mises Daily by John Chamberlain
Posted on 10/5/2009 12:00:00
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want
With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?
That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)
Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.
That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)
Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Healthcare Battle Royal
The McLaughlin Group was very entertaining last night. In this public television program, the gentlemanly host, John McLaughlin attempted to moderate a discussion between a few news people with markedly different viewpoints. There was a Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. A leftist ideologue with decorum and a humorous aloofness. The other liberal, Elena Clift from News Week was a good example of why Rush Limbaugh calls this publication Obama Week. The conservatives, Rich Lowry of National Review and Monica Crowley of the Washington Post seem unflinchingly right on, (at least from my point of view.)
A few issues were discussed before they got to the health care plan. The form and not the substance soon became the message. The panel members could not finish half a sentence before they were interrupted by loud, vehement objections from their antagonists. The audience as well as the participants soon lost track of the substance of the debate. Mr. McLaughlin, as apparently is the format, addressed a question so pointed to Mr. Page that it seemed to me a cross examination that could not be met without capitulating the point completely. In fact, he liked the question so much that he repeated it two or three times, each with more devastating intonations. Mr. Page's deft retort was that he would gladly answer the question if only Mr. McLaughlin would stop asking it. Although I believed that his answer would be mostly obfuscation, it really didn't matter since he had already scored a point by discrediting the questioner. The answer and the question were soon forgotten.
It was gratifying to see such august personages behaving verbally like barroom brawlers. It was really impossible to hear what anyone was saying. Ms. Clift gained the floor for a few seconds when she shouted that she just wanted to finish her sentience. She did quickly finish her sentence and three or four more, then, although she was interrupted by everyone, she kept on talking, I believe, till the end of the segment.
The most effective arguments came from Monica Crowly. She articulated well some of the stronger conservative, pro-capitalism points with a single minded clarity that won her ten or twelve uninterrupted seconds. She capitalized on the fact that it is hard to defend some of the presidents statements. For instance, how can we believe we can keep our health insurance, as he repeatedly promises, after actually reading the bill. No one really tried to address this or any of her and Mr. Lowry's points and no one would have heard them if they did.
A realization came to me this morning when I spoke to a group of people at a Democrat Booth at the local Ethnic Fest. All I really wanted was a bottle of water for which I gave them the requested donation. When I saw the title of the Single Payer petition that they wanted me to sign. I told them, I thought politely, that that would never happen. They immediately started to recite talking points, which I attempted to refute by explaining that shortcomings in health care are chiefly the results of prior liberal programs. As they would not stop the talking points that I would not stop trying to refute, we were soon shouting to be heard. I really did not refute anything since I am not good with talking points. I walked away, repeating that single payer is something I could never be convinced to agree with because it is socialism, which is always a bad choice.
This and other experiences convince me that this is a pivotal issue that goes to the heart of people's political beliefs. It cannot be decided by talking points. Talking points usually offer an 'either or' type of analysis without admitting that there may be solutions other than theirs. If all I am given for an option is socialism, 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.
A few issues were discussed before they got to the health care plan. The form and not the substance soon became the message. The panel members could not finish half a sentence before they were interrupted by loud, vehement objections from their antagonists. The audience as well as the participants soon lost track of the substance of the debate. Mr. McLaughlin, as apparently is the format, addressed a question so pointed to Mr. Page that it seemed to me a cross examination that could not be met without capitulating the point completely. In fact, he liked the question so much that he repeated it two or three times, each with more devastating intonations. Mr. Page's deft retort was that he would gladly answer the question if only Mr. McLaughlin would stop asking it. Although I believed that his answer would be mostly obfuscation, it really didn't matter since he had already scored a point by discrediting the questioner. The answer and the question were soon forgotten.
It was gratifying to see such august personages behaving verbally like barroom brawlers. It was really impossible to hear what anyone was saying. Ms. Clift gained the floor for a few seconds when she shouted that she just wanted to finish her sentience. She did quickly finish her sentence and three or four more, then, although she was interrupted by everyone, she kept on talking, I believe, till the end of the segment.
The most effective arguments came from Monica Crowly. She articulated well some of the stronger conservative, pro-capitalism points with a single minded clarity that won her ten or twelve uninterrupted seconds. She capitalized on the fact that it is hard to defend some of the presidents statements. For instance, how can we believe we can keep our health insurance, as he repeatedly promises, after actually reading the bill. No one really tried to address this or any of her and Mr. Lowry's points and no one would have heard them if they did.
A realization came to me this morning when I spoke to a group of people at a Democrat Booth at the local Ethnic Fest. All I really wanted was a bottle of water for which I gave them the requested donation. When I saw the title of the Single Payer petition that they wanted me to sign. I told them, I thought politely, that that would never happen. They immediately started to recite talking points, which I attempted to refute by explaining that shortcomings in health care are chiefly the results of prior liberal programs. As they would not stop the talking points that I would not stop trying to refute, we were soon shouting to be heard. I really did not refute anything since I am not good with talking points. I walked away, repeating that single payer is something I could never be convinced to agree with because it is socialism, which is always a bad choice.
This and other experiences convince me that this is a pivotal issue that goes to the heart of people's political beliefs. It cannot be decided by talking points. Talking points usually offer an 'either or' type of analysis without admitting that there may be solutions other than theirs. If all I am given for an option is socialism, 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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Free Market Arguments - Matter of Definition
IN order to have meaningful discussion, definitions of terms must be agreed upon. "Free Market" is used primarily in two different ways.
Definition#1: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services without the intervention of government.
Example #1: Johnny trades his peanut butter and jelly sandwich for Sally's Coca-Cola.
Definition #2: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services in which all parties take part freely using all known market data, including any government intervention data.
Example #2: Their school bans Coca-Cola because it contains too much sugar. Because Sally is the only one reckless enough to defy the school rules, she has the only Coca-Cola. Therefore the price of her Coke is bid up and Johnny must offer two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the Coke.
Thus, some would argue that in #2, since Johnny was free to keep his sandwiches if he wanted, the market was free. Economists use definition #1 only: A Free Market is exchange without government intervention. Under definition #1, it is clear that trading carbon credits under cap-and trade laws is not a "free market" transaction. In fact, the credits have no economic value without the government. Of course industry will play the game only because they have no choice, except prosecution, fines, and prison. To call that free is REALLY chicken shit.
Definition#1: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services without the intervention of government.
Example #1: Johnny trades his peanut butter and jelly sandwich for Sally's Coca-Cola.
Definition #2: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services in which all parties take part freely using all known market data, including any government intervention data.
Example #2: Their school bans Coca-Cola because it contains too much sugar. Because Sally is the only one reckless enough to defy the school rules, she has the only Coca-Cola. Therefore the price of her Coke is bid up and Johnny must offer two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the Coke.
Thus, some would argue that in #2, since Johnny was free to keep his sandwiches if he wanted, the market was free. Economists use definition #1 only: A Free Market is exchange without government intervention. Under definition #1, it is clear that trading carbon credits under cap-and trade laws is not a "free market" transaction. In fact, the credits have no economic value without the government. Of course industry will play the game only because they have no choice, except prosecution, fines, and prison. To call that free is REALLY chicken shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)