Paul Krugman says: Bush deficit - bad. Obama deficit - good.
How to understand it all?
see von Mises Institute's recent article http://mises.org/story/3691
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want
With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?
That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)
Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.
That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)
Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.
Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.
1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/
BHO Underground Organizations Revealed
Glenn Beck appeared on major network TV interviewed by Katie Couric. Ms. Couric made her name when she interviewed Sarah Palin before the election. Sarah Palin didn't come across too well, especially according to her opponents. On Couric's TV show Glenn Beck made the statement that John McCain would have been worse for the country that Barack Obama. Was he suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?
Glenn has long claimed to be independent from any political party. He has stated many times that both the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the problem. That's why Mark Levin seldom has much good to say about him. Mr. Levin is definitely of the opinion that the only chance of salvation from BHO is the Republican Party. There is no time for a third party or any similar movement. Mr. Levin does aspire to a 'new' Republican Party, in exactly the same context that Ronald Reagan called for just that.
I hope that Glenn's remarks to Katie Couric will have the affect of attracting attention to his radio and TV program. There are some horrific aspects of the BHO administration that Glenn is bringing to light. His explanations may lack completeness but he is in the process of figuring it out himself. Who really can sort out the ACORN, Apollo Alliance, TIDE, HUD, SEIU, etc. connections when those connections were intentionally hidden. There apparently are dozens of semi-secret, underground organizations that have seemingly legitimate front groups. The front groups receive government funds and non-profit status while furthering the aims of their underground controllers. George Soros, according to Glenn (and a lot of others) is behind most of it. The aims of these underground orginizations is unadultarated communism.
By the way, we do not want communism and all that it implies. If you do not know what it implies, there is much written on the subject. You should find out before we give it a try. It took the USSR 70 years to unwind so far and they still have a ways to go. (It took tens of millions dead too in case you hadn't heard.)
I certainly don't get it but I know I don't like it. I hope people with the time and resources will dig deep in this manure pile. People who understand the politics, history, and methods of communism could have fun with this. Mostly, they need to keep talking. The BHO organization will of course not sit still but will counter attack. The alternative press is bound to be the next target number one.
Glenn has long claimed to be independent from any political party. He has stated many times that both the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the problem. That's why Mark Levin seldom has much good to say about him. Mr. Levin is definitely of the opinion that the only chance of salvation from BHO is the Republican Party. There is no time for a third party or any similar movement. Mr. Levin does aspire to a 'new' Republican Party, in exactly the same context that Ronald Reagan called for just that.
I hope that Glenn's remarks to Katie Couric will have the affect of attracting attention to his radio and TV program. There are some horrific aspects of the BHO administration that Glenn is bringing to light. His explanations may lack completeness but he is in the process of figuring it out himself. Who really can sort out the ACORN, Apollo Alliance, TIDE, HUD, SEIU, etc. connections when those connections were intentionally hidden. There apparently are dozens of semi-secret, underground organizations that have seemingly legitimate front groups. The front groups receive government funds and non-profit status while furthering the aims of their underground controllers. George Soros, according to Glenn (and a lot of others) is behind most of it. The aims of these underground orginizations is unadultarated communism.
By the way, we do not want communism and all that it implies. If you do not know what it implies, there is much written on the subject. You should find out before we give it a try. It took the USSR 70 years to unwind so far and they still have a ways to go. (It took tens of millions dead too in case you hadn't heard.)
I certainly don't get it but I know I don't like it. I hope people with the time and resources will dig deep in this manure pile. People who understand the politics, history, and methods of communism could have fun with this. Mostly, they need to keep talking. The BHO organization will of course not sit still but will counter attack. The alternative press is bound to be the next target number one.
See the following:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php
Friday, September 25, 2009
George Was Right
My mom told me that her dad, George, used to read about the New Deal every morning in the newspaper. After reading the headlines, his comment was always similar: "Look what that son of a bitch is doing now!" My mom said she was twelve before she knew that the president's name was not 'that son of a bitch.' With the Internet and talk radio, George would really be upset today. Just think of all the news about FDR's new deal he didn't know because it was not printed in the newspaper. However, compared to the newspapers of today, I am sure that the news medial of the 1930's was honest and helpful. Thank God we have alternative outlets for the truth today. We would all be in Obama Squads (or the gulags) by now if the Government controlled Press [GCP] was the only non-governmental bulwark of the republic.
Pay Now and Pay Later for Gov Helathcare
Any bill that passes will require insurance companies to cover more and not deny applicants with existing coverage. Won't that mean that the cost of health insurance will go up? There will also be government subsidized insurance for those who cannot afford it. Doesn't that mean that taxes will go up?
Currently, I and most others have clanged to insurance policies that offer less coverage (as little as current State law allows) and high deductibles. Currently, those who cannot afford coverage qualify for means tested Medicaid (as congress gave us to solve this problem the last time around). Anyone who really needs medical care can receive it. If they do not pay the bill, providers can collect in the usual ways. If they go bankrupt, then they must have assets that they needed to protect, so why couldn't they have used their assets to purchase insurance?
Sounds to me like another government program to:
1) give us some benefit that is available on the free market but that is not what we choose to spend our money on. That is, higher levels of coverage or any insurance at all for some.
2) provide for those we cannot afford care -- which we already have.
There are thousands of "Free Market" improvements in the system that can be made, which mostly involve undoing what we have already done.
I was going to list links, but you can Google "Free market health care" as well as I can.
Currently, I and most others have clanged to insurance policies that offer less coverage (as little as current State law allows) and high deductibles. Currently, those who cannot afford coverage qualify for means tested Medicaid (as congress gave us to solve this problem the last time around). Anyone who really needs medical care can receive it. If they do not pay the bill, providers can collect in the usual ways. If they go bankrupt, then they must have assets that they needed to protect, so why couldn't they have used their assets to purchase insurance?
Sounds to me like another government program to:
1) give us some benefit that is available on the free market but that is not what we choose to spend our money on. That is, higher levels of coverage or any insurance at all for some.
2) provide for those we cannot afford care -- which we already have.
There are thousands of "Free Market" improvements in the system that can be made, which mostly involve undoing what we have already done.
I was going to list links, but you can Google "Free market health care" as well as I can.
Post Office Says It Can't Compete
The US Postal Services asks congress for another 1.4 Billion to pay retirement pensions that they owe. By the way, social security also says that they will be spending more that they take in by next year.
Obama says that his healthcare system will compete like the post office with the private companies. His hero F. D. Roosevelt brought us Social security knowing full well that it was a ponzie scheme. But who really cares, so long as the government keeps giving us stuff, that's the important thing: Vote Democrat to keep it coming!
Obama says that his healthcare system will compete like the post office with the private companies. His hero F. D. Roosevelt brought us Social security knowing full well that it was a ponzie scheme. But who really cares, so long as the government keeps giving us stuff, that's the important thing: Vote Democrat to keep it coming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)