Huffington Post Gets It Right Sort Of

Huffington Post's story on this subject:

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

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

Right on Huffy.

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

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

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

Questions we have not adequately explored:

1) Is there global warming?

2) Is it caused by man?

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

Get Your Red Green Card Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angry Mobs

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

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

New Energy Discovery

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

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

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

New Day for living Reaganites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Bubble - Health Care?

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

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

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

Albert Jay Nock Up and Coming?

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

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

This is a Paragraph from the Wikopedia article:

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

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

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

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

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

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