In the first segment of his 12/3/10 program, Mark Levin addresses the issues of taxation currently before our congress. In fact, Mark delineates the conservative position in the age old debate between economic freedom and government economic control. Recordings of Biden and other Democrats represent the opposing views. Mark pulls no punches with his refutation of the Democrat, that is statist, view.
"We are witnessing the collapse of the welfare state ... They have led us to the precipice and they continue..." -- Mark Levin
This program is available for free for the next month at Mark Levin Show Audio Rewinds. Mark is refining his presentation. This is one of his best shows. http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
It seems to me that the public spoke in the last election. They do not want any more big government interference, we have had more that we can take. Obama and his far left wacko commissars have been exposed for what they are and we do not want any more. What we do not know is what to call them. It used to be liberals, but that is confusing; they sound like communists, but they say they aren't; they act like socialists, but the media tells us the definition does not fit. Glenn Beck points out how "state capitalism," which is a currently used term, is really the same thing as national socialism. Listening to the Ed Schultz show callers, one can get an education regarding our current national socialists. They call in sounding like thugs and he encourages them. I call them statist progressives: they propose control by a totalitarian state as the best means of improving our lot (so they say, I think it's their own lot they want to improve). If we are still around, it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
The People Know Best
The economy will be the issue in the upcoming election. It is nothing new that the voting public will be concerned about whether they will keep their job or find a job. That is normal in a down economy. What is new, is that voters will see economic issues as a choice between competing economic theories. Republicans, in spite of some watered-down specimens, are seen as favoring laissez faire capitalism. The image of Democrats is not so clear. The press characterises the policies of Obama and his majority congressional party as moderate and free of ideology. The voters know that this is far from true. The public has not been blind and deaf and sees Democrats as favoring one form of socialism or another.
The media seldom frames the choices this clearly and the messages from politicians skirt this fundamental debate. Nevertheless, the public knows that change is afoot. The question is whether we want to endorse the changes implemented by the Democrats or to change directions. At long last, this is how it should be. We have never had that choice presented so starkly before. Laissez faire implies freedom, some will fear the personal responsibility that it also implies. However, more of us fear the emphasise on state and collective power and welfare in place of of the individual that socialism implies.
To what extent we will get change along free market lines even with the Republicans is problematic. Even with a slim majority, the president would still have veto power. Unfortunately also, far to many Republicans still want to compromise the principles of our constitution. Old political habits are hard to break. However, even modest Republicans gains, will show that the public at least has turned the corner. If we can do that, economic confidence will build. We will be heading in the right direction and can drag our lawmakers along.
The media seldom frames the choices this clearly and the messages from politicians skirt this fundamental debate. Nevertheless, the public knows that change is afoot. The question is whether we want to endorse the changes implemented by the Democrats or to change directions. At long last, this is how it should be. We have never had that choice presented so starkly before. Laissez faire implies freedom, some will fear the personal responsibility that it also implies. However, more of us fear the emphasise on state and collective power and welfare in place of of the individual that socialism implies.
To what extent we will get change along free market lines even with the Republicans is problematic. Even with a slim majority, the president would still have veto power. Unfortunately also, far to many Republicans still want to compromise the principles of our constitution. Old political habits are hard to break. However, even modest Republicans gains, will show that the public at least has turned the corner. If we can do that, economic confidence will build. We will be heading in the right direction and can drag our lawmakers along.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Two Person Poll
I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.
Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.
Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.
An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.
See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)
More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"
This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)
As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.
Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.
Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.
An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.
See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)
More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"
This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)
As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Economics of Unemployment Benefits
It is a truism of economics that unemployment is caused by wages being too high. How can that be? Simple: government intervention. Unemployment benefits are only one form of government intervention that prop up wages. Government hiring for work projects is another. We are doing both of these now. Most attempts at regulation in that area distort the market for labor. Labor laws that make it difficult and costly to dismiss workers once hired is a disincentive for business to hire. Uneven labor laws often give business only the option to cave in to union demands or go out of business -- negotiating at the point of a gun as they say. These laws are enacted to support union workers but actually hurt them and other workers. Due to higher labor costs, the level of production is decreased. Therefore, not only are fewer union workers hired, but nonunion hiring is diminished due to lower overall production.
Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.
These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.
Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.
Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.
These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.
Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.
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.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Free Free Market vs. The Party
The recent health care summit tells the whole story of what this administration is all about: a quest for authoritarian, dictatorial power. The president pressured Republican congressional leaders to attend a meeting with him and Democrats. The Republicans were reminded that they must address BHO as President Obama or Mr. President. Yet he addressed them by first name. What ever happened the the co-equal branches of government? After months of stating that the Republicans had proposed no health care ideas of their own, he summarily dismissed their proposals as unacceptable. He then lectured the Republicans for using "talking points" and for "campaigning." In point of fact, his and the Democrat's only arguments against the Republican proposals were that they could not be passed by Congress. In other words, they would vote against them. That is precisely why the republicans don't have bills being considered in congress. Since they are a minority and the Democrats are not in a bipartisan mood, any Republican bill is dead on arrival. BHO and the Democrats have constantly claimed that the Republicans have no ideas. One Democrat, who was quoted for a week in the press, stated that Republicans' only health care plan was that if you are sick, you should die. These types of statements by BHO and the Democrats are in fact only propaganda, campaigning talking points. Just because the press didn't point it out, does not mean it isn't so.
The Republican ideas include removing state regulations so individuals can shop for any type of health insurance policy that they want. Income tax deductible of individual health care and insurance should remove the bias in favor of employer provided coverage and promote portability. Insures would be required to participate in high risk pools to take pre-existing conditions and other high risks at a predetermined rate. For those who cannot afford available coverage, the state would subsidise care on a sliding scale. Private charities could also play a roll. Private insurance companies and all types of providers would be in constant competition to provide the best and lowest cost care. Some providers would of course contract with insurance companies to provide specialised care for certain expensive cases. The roll of the state could be minimal. Consumer protection agencies could closely police any violations of the contractual responsibilities of the parties involved. This would augment normal legal remedies. Tort lawyers would play the roll that they currently do of obtaining compensation for those who are seriously injured by negligently shoddy care or by breaches of contract. As far as tort reform, some sort of limits on judgements could be set. Judges and juries do a fair job of doing this already. The benefit of this type of tort reform would be to keep down the number of expensive tests. This would happen by reducing defensive medicine and by reducing expensive procedures preformed under the pretense of defensive medicine.
There are many market refinements possible that would need only minimal and probably no new types of government involvement. What is needed is less regulation to let the efficiencies of the market do the job, not the bureaucrats. This is what Republicans, at least the conservatives, want. This is what Democrats, at least the Progressives, Communists, and Socialists do not want. With little or no government involvement, we would not need them.
The Republican ideas include removing state regulations so individuals can shop for any type of health insurance policy that they want. Income tax deductible of individual health care and insurance should remove the bias in favor of employer provided coverage and promote portability. Insures would be required to participate in high risk pools to take pre-existing conditions and other high risks at a predetermined rate. For those who cannot afford available coverage, the state would subsidise care on a sliding scale. Private charities could also play a roll. Private insurance companies and all types of providers would be in constant competition to provide the best and lowest cost care. Some providers would of course contract with insurance companies to provide specialised care for certain expensive cases. The roll of the state could be minimal. Consumer protection agencies could closely police any violations of the contractual responsibilities of the parties involved. This would augment normal legal remedies. Tort lawyers would play the roll that they currently do of obtaining compensation for those who are seriously injured by negligently shoddy care or by breaches of contract. As far as tort reform, some sort of limits on judgements could be set. Judges and juries do a fair job of doing this already. The benefit of this type of tort reform would be to keep down the number of expensive tests. This would happen by reducing defensive medicine and by reducing expensive procedures preformed under the pretense of defensive medicine.
There are many market refinements possible that would need only minimal and probably no new types of government involvement. What is needed is less regulation to let the efficiencies of the market do the job, not the bureaucrats. This is what Republicans, at least the conservatives, want. This is what Democrats, at least the Progressives, Communists, and Socialists do not want. With little or no government involvement, we would not need them.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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
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
Friday, February 5, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
It's not Just the Ecomomy Stupid
Economic factors may not be the most important aspects of our lives, but they do form the basis of most of our interactions. Through work and exchange, we come into contact with others. The spiritual dimensions of life, although the most enduring and valuable, are usually private things. This has been the sensible American way of thinking and mode of behavior. One reason westerners have a reputation for reticence is that our society is highly heterogeneous. We have so many peoples of so many view points and beliefs, that it is often the best policy to avoid disputes by keeping most of our views to ourselves. But sometimes we are pushed too far.
Journalist, Brit Hume was moved by the spectacle of Tiger Wood's vast extramarital exploits to actually recommended Christianity for him. He thought that it would be superior to Wood's apparently professed beliefs in Buddhism. Of course the leftist journalist have been pontificating against Hume See USA Today's story: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/01/tiger-woods-brit-hume-jesus-buddhism-evangelist/1 Today, His Excellency the Great One, Mark Levin, discussed the tedious and arrogant remarks by Keith Overbite of Countdown to No Ratings. (Note: I do not believe that this is the real name of Mr. Overbite's program but as I have never watched it, I only know Mr. Levin's sobriquet.) Apparently, Mr. Overbite took offense with Mr. Hume's remarks, which he viewed as a slight to Buddhism. Furthermore, as a leftist, Mr. Overbite has a deep seated grudge against Christianity. As for myself, even though my Catholic beliefs sometimes verge on the Ultramontainism of my forefathers, I am not motivated to proselytize. In defense of Mr. Hume's doing so I would point out the following:
Buddhists have the belief, not so different from Christians, that we must experience the consequences of our actions (and even the actions of our forebearers), whether now or in the future. Enlightenment cannot come until the karma of our past deeds has been erases. Buddhist masters have variously held that this is not easy, in fact well nigh impossible. (Of course Christians would say that once enlightened, you still aren't necessarily saved.) If this karmic load can be eased by our good deeds and thoughts, then this is not such an unchristian belief. In fact, Christianity goes a step further in it's view that only by the grace of God can we be saved (or enlightened) because man cannot alone overcome the burden of sin (karma). And it is reasonable for even a Buddhist to see the ultimate and sublime grace that would proceed from the blood sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus, who died so that sins could be forgiven (and we could become enlightened).
What I had started out to write was that if appeals to conventional morality and religion can turn some of the population against the current socialist (and atheist) regime, I say pour it on thick. The same for national defense issues. It seems that the public at large can understand the shortcomings of the Obamaites in military and antiterrorism matters better that it can comprehend BHO's economics folly. I am glad to see the left attacked on all fronts. If it causes more people to join the Party of No, I'm all for it.
Journalist, Brit Hume was moved by the spectacle of Tiger Wood's vast extramarital exploits to actually recommended Christianity for him. He thought that it would be superior to Wood's apparently professed beliefs in Buddhism. Of course the leftist journalist have been pontificating against Hume See USA Today's story: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/01/tiger-woods-brit-hume-jesus-buddhism-evangelist/1 Today, His Excellency the Great One, Mark Levin, discussed the tedious and arrogant remarks by Keith Overbite of Countdown to No Ratings. (Note: I do not believe that this is the real name of Mr. Overbite's program but as I have never watched it, I only know Mr. Levin's sobriquet.) Apparently, Mr. Overbite took offense with Mr. Hume's remarks, which he viewed as a slight to Buddhism. Furthermore, as a leftist, Mr. Overbite has a deep seated grudge against Christianity. As for myself, even though my Catholic beliefs sometimes verge on the Ultramontainism of my forefathers, I am not motivated to proselytize. In defense of Mr. Hume's doing so I would point out the following:
Buddhists have the belief, not so different from Christians, that we must experience the consequences of our actions (and even the actions of our forebearers), whether now or in the future. Enlightenment cannot come until the karma of our past deeds has been erases. Buddhist masters have variously held that this is not easy, in fact well nigh impossible. (Of course Christians would say that once enlightened, you still aren't necessarily saved.) If this karmic load can be eased by our good deeds and thoughts, then this is not such an unchristian belief. In fact, Christianity goes a step further in it's view that only by the grace of God can we be saved (or enlightened) because man cannot alone overcome the burden of sin (karma). And it is reasonable for even a Buddhist to see the ultimate and sublime grace that would proceed from the blood sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus, who died so that sins could be forgiven (and we could become enlightened).
What I had started out to write was that if appeals to conventional morality and religion can turn some of the population against the current socialist (and atheist) regime, I say pour it on thick. The same for national defense issues. It seems that the public at large can understand the shortcomings of the Obamaites in military and antiterrorism matters better that it can comprehend BHO's economics folly. I am glad to see the left attacked on all fronts. If it causes more people to join the Party of No, I'm all for it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Senate Health Bill: Dead or Alive?
The current bill and the current Democrat conception of government healthcare policy does not have the support of most Americans according to most polls. There is so much wrong, undemocratic, and un-American with both that not a single Republican Senator will vote for it. What is good about the bill is chiefly its measures to try to reform Medicare, to put it on a financially sound footing. These may be sound measures and probably not what Republicans would propose but they may help. Why weren't they part of a separate Medicare reform bill? What, if anything else, is good about the bill could have been proposed separately to help reform the current state of government healthcare entitlements.
There is much in the bill that is an affront to the tradition of economic freedom of this nation. There is much in the bill that will degrade medical innovation that has made our healthcare the best in the world. There is much that takes away our choice and costs us more through taxes and various fees and penalties. The bill essentially forces more insurance on many Americans than they want. Of course they will use it by demanding more services since they will be paying for them. This will tend to strain the system and raise costs. It will require a massive, tightly controlled bureaucratic rationing. This is where things usually break down, as with price controls. By rationing, I mean the usual economic definition of forced allocation of a service that does not have a free market to control it by the mechanism of price. This will mean less care provided and more people going without. Isn't it ironic that a supposedly free government provided service will result in less care for more people. That's what happens with all goods and services in a socialist system.
Most conservatives commentators think that the bills is more about a vast increase in government power over the lives of all Americans, making us more dependant upon government. Since Democrats have become the party of big government, it is chiefly a grab for more political power. Votes for the bill have been secured by huge taxpayer funded gifts to the states of Democrat Senators who claim to be undecided.
There is never any improvement with socialism. It is and has always been true that American greatness has been the direct result of our liberty. I predict that the bill will not pass. There has to be among the Democrats at lease one person of integrity who will look to the wishes of their constituents if for no other reason and vote no. There may even be one or two or a few who realise that government provided control does not improve our lot. Eventually, it makes any problem greater and creates more and more difficulties in all areas of society. Eventually, it fails. It may be our fate to learn the lesson that hard way, but I certainly hope not.
There is much in the bill that is an affront to the tradition of economic freedom of this nation. There is much in the bill that will degrade medical innovation that has made our healthcare the best in the world. There is much that takes away our choice and costs us more through taxes and various fees and penalties. The bill essentially forces more insurance on many Americans than they want. Of course they will use it by demanding more services since they will be paying for them. This will tend to strain the system and raise costs. It will require a massive, tightly controlled bureaucratic rationing. This is where things usually break down, as with price controls. By rationing, I mean the usual economic definition of forced allocation of a service that does not have a free market to control it by the mechanism of price. This will mean less care provided and more people going without. Isn't it ironic that a supposedly free government provided service will result in less care for more people. That's what happens with all goods and services in a socialist system.
Most conservatives commentators think that the bills is more about a vast increase in government power over the lives of all Americans, making us more dependant upon government. Since Democrats have become the party of big government, it is chiefly a grab for more political power. Votes for the bill have been secured by huge taxpayer funded gifts to the states of Democrat Senators who claim to be undecided.
There is never any improvement with socialism. It is and has always been true that American greatness has been the direct result of our liberty. I predict that the bill will not pass. There has to be among the Democrats at lease one person of integrity who will look to the wishes of their constituents if for no other reason and vote no. There may even be one or two or a few who realise that government provided control does not improve our lot. Eventually, it makes any problem greater and creates more and more difficulties in all areas of society. Eventually, it fails. It may be our fate to learn the lesson that hard way, but I certainly hope not.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thanksgiving: Time for Reflection and Best of on the Radio
Thanksgiving guests gave me the opportunity to keep up with liberal thought by listening to friends and relatives. My brother, who supported BHO because of the bonuses received by corporate CEO, now favors government healthcare. His reasoning is that he can get free healthcare if he quits his job or is laid off. He pointed out how the only construction going on is government projects and how his heating oil delivery job is slow because few are ordering oil for their home. I told him there is little private construction BECAUSE of all the government 'stimulus' spending. Economic resources (usually referred to as Land. Labor, and Capital) are all going to the government. The government, with its money printing press, can always outbid the private sector, especially in economic slowdowns. We need to let prices adjust (mostly downward) for there to be economic recovery. BHO is trying to reinflate the bubble. This has never worked but that does not stop BHO from trying. But yes he can't.
With socialized medicine, I have tried to tell him there's no free lunch. If we cannot individually afford healthcare, how can we afford it collectively. It will turn out as the case of the store door-greeter who gets minimum wage. He is so glad when he hears that the minimum wage is being raised. As soon as it becomes law, he can't understand why the store tells him they don't need a door-greeter anymore. The lesson: you never get what the government promises. Government programs are like the devil's empty promises. They lead us from the true path and never provide what they promise. Again we not only have economic theory to guide us but we also have recent history. Socialism never works and trying again will give us the same disastrous results.
I have already said all this in earlier posts. Another feature of the holidays is that the radio talk show often have 'Best Of' programs. Mark Levin again recaped his report on the four government actions that caused the mortgage/banking collapse last year. He recps the various laws passed, the government agencies empowered, the corruption and growth of government involvement. He makes an excellent case. The Democrat response to these facts is 1) ignore, 2) talking point: not a significant factor because: -------- (fill in the lie). 3) it was cooperate greed, or 4) Ha Ha, there was plenty of blame to go around... followed by solution: MORE government involvement. So typical and of course supported by the lame stream press (as Sarah Palin calls the GCP).
I thought that the latest banking crisis was caused by the government. This was confirmed, I thought, when it came out the Freddy Mac and Fannie May owned or controlled over half of the country's mortgages. I thought that it was obvious for even the biggest ignoramus to understand when the talk shows played multiple speeches of President Bush, John McCain, and other Republicans warning of the pending problems with Freddy and Fanny. They then played the tape of Senator Dodd and other Democrats arguing that it was no problem. The Problem to anyone with eyes to see: BHO, Nancy Pulosi, Harry Ried, Christopher Dodd, Chucky Schumer, and the interventionist policies of the current democrat party.
With socialized medicine, I have tried to tell him there's no free lunch. If we cannot individually afford healthcare, how can we afford it collectively. It will turn out as the case of the store door-greeter who gets minimum wage. He is so glad when he hears that the minimum wage is being raised. As soon as it becomes law, he can't understand why the store tells him they don't need a door-greeter anymore. The lesson: you never get what the government promises. Government programs are like the devil's empty promises. They lead us from the true path and never provide what they promise. Again we not only have economic theory to guide us but we also have recent history. Socialism never works and trying again will give us the same disastrous results.
I have already said all this in earlier posts. Another feature of the holidays is that the radio talk show often have 'Best Of' programs. Mark Levin again recaped his report on the four government actions that caused the mortgage/banking collapse last year. He recps the various laws passed, the government agencies empowered, the corruption and growth of government involvement. He makes an excellent case. The Democrat response to these facts is 1) ignore, 2) talking point: not a significant factor because: -------- (fill in the lie). 3) it was cooperate greed, or 4) Ha Ha, there was plenty of blame to go around... followed by solution: MORE government involvement. So typical and of course supported by the lame stream press (as Sarah Palin calls the GCP).
I thought that the latest banking crisis was caused by the government. This was confirmed, I thought, when it came out the Freddy Mac and Fannie May owned or controlled over half of the country's mortgages. I thought that it was obvious for even the biggest ignoramus to understand when the talk shows played multiple speeches of President Bush, John McCain, and other Republicans warning of the pending problems with Freddy and Fanny. They then played the tape of Senator Dodd and other Democrats arguing that it was no problem. The Problem to anyone with eyes to see: BHO, Nancy Pulosi, Harry Ried, Christopher Dodd, Chucky Schumer, and the interventionist policies of the current democrat party.
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
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Not Listening Still
Today BHO spokesperson Gibbs says town hall attendees are not indicative of America and the sentiments of the populace. They are indicative of my sentiments. Not only is this administration not listening to the people, they are trying to silence us via their propaganda machine. I do not want socialism and I do not know anyone who does. Some people may have wanted change but not this.
Medicare costs much more that predicted and budgeted. Tax payers have to pick-up the multi billion (or I suppose trillion) dollar bill. If this isn't failure, I do not know what is. By broadening the scope of government health care we can include more of the population and take in more money. This is ponzi finance: if Medicare needs money, we make more promises to provide more care to more people so we can get more money to catch up with medicare shortages. Who will pick-up the bill for the new programs? BHO does not care.
A Government-single-payer economic model does not work in health care or anything else. The bigger it gets, the worse it works. There is no shortage of economic and medical system experts who can explain in great depth why this is so. Supporters of the current proposals are not listening to objections. They prefer to continue to asset that there are no cogent arguments offered by opponents. I have listened to them but not only hear no cogent arguments in favor of their proposal but have not even heard exactly what their proposal is.
When do we try freedom is what I ask.
Medicare costs much more that predicted and budgeted. Tax payers have to pick-up the multi billion (or I suppose trillion) dollar bill. If this isn't failure, I do not know what is. By broadening the scope of government health care we can include more of the population and take in more money. This is ponzi finance: if Medicare needs money, we make more promises to provide more care to more people so we can get more money to catch up with medicare shortages. Who will pick-up the bill for the new programs? BHO does not care.
A Government-single-payer economic model does not work in health care or anything else. The bigger it gets, the worse it works. There is no shortage of economic and medical system experts who can explain in great depth why this is so. Supporters of the current proposals are not listening to objections. They prefer to continue to asset that there are no cogent arguments offered by opponents. I have listened to them but not only hear no cogent arguments in favor of their proposal but have not even heard exactly what their proposal is.
When do we try freedom is what I ask.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Socialism Marches On
Today, President Obama addressed the objection that private insurance could not compete against a government owned "insurance" enterprise. He stated, among other things, that UPS and Fed Ex currently compete against the Post Office, so why couldn't insurance companies also compete against a government enterprise? He did mention that the post office has chronic financial troubles (and thus is tax payer supported). I doubt that they even count the cost of the postal workers pensions. There are probably many other "costs" that are paid by the tax payer and are not figured in the profit-lost calculations for the post office. In fact, there are probably costs that cannot be calculated because they are for good and services from other government agencies that are not on the market, and thus have no price. The government monopoly post office also does not allow competition in the area of first class mail delivery and probably in other areas.
Whether or not government health care insurance would loss money (and I am sure it would - lots of money), it would always be competing on its own terms. Any services that it wished to monopolize, it would. Any regulations that it wished to impose on the so-called free market insurers, it would.
It seems obvious to me that government could could not compete with business. That is why it would impose regulation upon commercial insurers. They have already listed several new mandates it would impose (on top of the ones it has imposed over the last few decades). Business would not be allowed to operate in the ways it deemed most efficient and profitable. The flip side is that consumers would not be able to chose the type of insurance or coverage plans that they want. Government would surely want to unionize every aspect of health care, otherwise the government labor costs would be much higher than the private, given all of government employee union benefits. Either taxes would have to cover government losses or private premiums would have to be forced as high as government costs. These items would actually be beyond our power to calculate. Government would effectively set the price of insurance. They would soon find that they had to set the price of health care itself in order for their "insurance" to work. That, in turn, would not work either.
The whole idea of parallel systems sounds like a huge debacle doomed to failure. I for one would not want to pay taxes to the government system and also pay for private coverage. The forced failure of private insurance would be in furtherance of their ultimate plan. Talk radio has been playing clips of BHO and other Party dignitaries making campaign speeches at Party gatherings. They state quite clearly that a single payer government plan is what they want. BHO says we may not get it right away. We may have to offer a private option for a while. Presumably, this would be crippled by "regulation" then phased out and the government plan would take over the whole thing. This is exactly the socialists dream and method in all areas of human society and always has been. It has already happened to GM and Chrysler and to the biggest mortgage companies and banks. I do not see how anyone can really be deceived by this unless they want to be.
Whether or not government health care insurance would loss money (and I am sure it would - lots of money), it would always be competing on its own terms. Any services that it wished to monopolize, it would. Any regulations that it wished to impose on the so-called free market insurers, it would.
It seems obvious to me that government could could not compete with business. That is why it would impose regulation upon commercial insurers. They have already listed several new mandates it would impose (on top of the ones it has imposed over the last few decades). Business would not be allowed to operate in the ways it deemed most efficient and profitable. The flip side is that consumers would not be able to chose the type of insurance or coverage plans that they want. Government would surely want to unionize every aspect of health care, otherwise the government labor costs would be much higher than the private, given all of government employee union benefits. Either taxes would have to cover government losses or private premiums would have to be forced as high as government costs. These items would actually be beyond our power to calculate. Government would effectively set the price of insurance. They would soon find that they had to set the price of health care itself in order for their "insurance" to work. That, in turn, would not work either.
The whole idea of parallel systems sounds like a huge debacle doomed to failure. I for one would not want to pay taxes to the government system and also pay for private coverage. The forced failure of private insurance would be in furtherance of their ultimate plan. Talk radio has been playing clips of BHO and other Party dignitaries making campaign speeches at Party gatherings. They state quite clearly that a single payer government plan is what they want. BHO says we may not get it right away. We may have to offer a private option for a while. Presumably, this would be crippled by "regulation" then phased out and the government plan would take over the whole thing. This is exactly the socialists dream and method in all areas of human society and always has been. It has already happened to GM and Chrysler and to the biggest mortgage companies and banks. I do not see how anyone can really be deceived by this unless they want to be.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)