The Republican pundits and blogsters are all aghast at the passage of healthcare reform. I guess that they are irritated that the record for biggest entitlement increase in generations is now held by the Democrats. Previously the Repubs had held the title with the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. Those pesky Dems have taken the lead and don't seem to be looking back. And now O'Reilly and Hannity drone on and on about the eviscerated Constitution. Interesting that there wasn't much talk from the neocon mouthpieces of what the Patriot Act did to the document. They are born again constitutionalists now that the Democrats are in charge.
The great thing about "Health Care Reform" is that there is no money to pay for it. I cheer the passage of any bill that hastens the bankruptcy of the federal government. The only way guaranteed to slow government growth/power is bankruptcy. Most folks fail to understand that government is a giant leech on the neck of the economy. There is no economy positive thing that government does. Fortunately for us, the pillagers currently in power don't have the sense of an untrained billy goat. They will eat everything until there is no more food. One can hope that then they starve.
This has happened before. The governments of France, Great Britain, Rome, the USSR and numerous other great powers lost their collective minds and over pillaged their peoples until there was no more stuff to take. Then they shrunk and lost power. This is the inevitable cycle with human depravity being what it is and government of humans being what it is. The Republicans usually understand that the best way to properly steal is to do it slowly so as not to kill off the golden goose. This is the main debate on the Hill: how to pillage properly for maintenance of long term rewards at the expense of those actually working.
Some of you may say that the above is just my opinion, I am a reactionary and that I fail to see the big picture yada yada yada... To you all, I would point out that 1 Samuel 8 states clearly what central governments do. If you don't like 1 Samuel take a look at the writings of Frederic Bastiat, Murray Rothbard, Frederich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, or Hans Herman Hoppe.
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."....Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
Ask yourself if this is where we are at now? The worst of both worlds is at hand in our egalitarian democracy. We have a strong central government that is capable of taking whatever it wants with or without (quite obviously) the consent of the governed. Every four years the people cry out for a new president that will give them what the other governments around us have. We begged the government for security and got the Patriot Act. We begged the government for jobs and got the Stimulus. We begged the government for drugs and healthcare and we got it. Just like Israel, we get what we ask for each time at the cost of eroding our freedoms and national character. This last election cycle we sold our freedoms for the paltry sum of "Change." I would say that we got what we asked for this week.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Who is John Galt.....?
Some of you may have read Ayn Rand's classic Atlas Shrugged. The book chronicles the slow melt down of the United States as those that know how to make things work are given no incentive to provide that expertise to the populace. I am not an adherent of the Objectivist school of philosophy. However, I find many parallels between Atlas Shrugged and the events of today's era.
Rand shows us a world where, in order to be successful, it is necessary to curry favor with the appropriate bureaucrat. This is as it is currently in our glorious plutocracy. If you are a bank, it would appear that you need to engage Tim Geithner. If you are a drug company, you need to lobby one of the key swing senators who can influence health-care legislation. Of course, heavy industry needs to make sure that they have the right bureaucrat on board in case Obama manages to get off the mat enough to start some type of climate change legislation.
Rand further describes how those that do produce on their own are stifled by regulation and changing legislation. This is exactly what is currently happening. Investors are finding it nearly impossible to figure out what to invest in and what to stay away from because new regulation is always on the horizon. The most egregious example of this is the recent proposal to break up and enhance regulation on large financial institutions. Banks and their investors had planned on their current business model for the foreseeable future but, with these proposals, it is unclear whether that model is viable. When government regulation of any given business changes, the investor and management must adjust to a new set of parameters within which to run their business. This changing of the rules in mid-game causes investors to potentially change their strategies for deploying their monies which can be devastating to the businesses that depend on that money. To illustrate what I mean, ask yourself whether or not you would invest in health insurance companies right now or wait for the health care bill to pass.
As the government fiddles with all manner of private business, we continously see that unforeseen second and third order effects happen that stymie innovation and the road to recovery. The decision by the Federal Reserve to pay interest on excess reserves is a case study. The rule was put into place so that banks could build up reserves and still make some money to help them stay in business. The second order effect was that they now don't have to lend out their money to the public in order to stay in business. The third order effect is that all of the Fed's money pumping is not making it into the economy to stoke the recovery. There is a potential that that money will be deployed swiftly and cause inflation once banks are less risk averse than they are now. There are numerous other examples where federal meddling in the private sector is making it increasingly difficult to make financial decisions. This is causing the private sector to withdraw to safety rather than take reasonable risks based on foreseeable business parameters.
Although I know that it is not in vogue to praise free markets because it has been the received wisdom that the free market was what caused the recent downturn, let me speculate what may have happened if the market was allowed to work in one sector. If the government had allowed GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt several salutory events could very reasonably have happened. The unions back would have been broken, and the pricing of auto labor would have been brought into line with reality. Ford, the US automaker with the best business practices, would have increased market share which would have rewarded the best run US automaker. There would have been little reason to have the "Cash for Clunkers" program which would have helped a cash strapped US treasury. Money which was added to the deficit by the various auto bailout plans would be available to private entrepeneurs who may have spent the savings on building high speed rail systems to take the place of airlines whose business models look increasingly suspect in the current high fuel cost era. The trains would be much more "green" than getting GM and Chrysler to build a few E85 cars.
Alas this is not to be. Our society is instead rapidly dissolving into one that looks to influence beauracrats and elected officials to get our hands on an ever dwindling pot of federal handouts. I recently saw an add for the census that suggested that a good reason to complete census forms was so that your district could get the right amount of federal monies. Daily I hear adds from companies that suggest that because banks received bailouts on their problem loan books we should expect a bailout from our credit card debts. As more and more of our society become leeches, I wonder who will be left to produce the wealth that the we live off of.
In "Atlas Shrugged" Rand describes a world where the producers, led by a man named John Galt, one by one quit because they get tired of seeing the fruits of their labors given to others who had "connections." I fear that we will see that outcome if we continue on our current path. This is not without precedent. The USSR basically collapsed from within because of economic apathy. The communist leaders of China were discerning enough to understand what had happened and began to encourage policies that have loosened government controls on the market. These policies, although not as free a one would like, still have produced a minor economic miracle in the country.
I don't want to find out who is John Galt, but I am afraid that we will all meet him within my lifetime.
Rand shows us a world where, in order to be successful, it is necessary to curry favor with the appropriate bureaucrat. This is as it is currently in our glorious plutocracy. If you are a bank, it would appear that you need to engage Tim Geithner. If you are a drug company, you need to lobby one of the key swing senators who can influence health-care legislation. Of course, heavy industry needs to make sure that they have the right bureaucrat on board in case Obama manages to get off the mat enough to start some type of climate change legislation.
Rand further describes how those that do produce on their own are stifled by regulation and changing legislation. This is exactly what is currently happening. Investors are finding it nearly impossible to figure out what to invest in and what to stay away from because new regulation is always on the horizon. The most egregious example of this is the recent proposal to break up and enhance regulation on large financial institutions. Banks and their investors had planned on their current business model for the foreseeable future but, with these proposals, it is unclear whether that model is viable. When government regulation of any given business changes, the investor and management must adjust to a new set of parameters within which to run their business. This changing of the rules in mid-game causes investors to potentially change their strategies for deploying their monies which can be devastating to the businesses that depend on that money. To illustrate what I mean, ask yourself whether or not you would invest in health insurance companies right now or wait for the health care bill to pass.
As the government fiddles with all manner of private business, we continously see that unforeseen second and third order effects happen that stymie innovation and the road to recovery. The decision by the Federal Reserve to pay interest on excess reserves is a case study. The rule was put into place so that banks could build up reserves and still make some money to help them stay in business. The second order effect was that they now don't have to lend out their money to the public in order to stay in business. The third order effect is that all of the Fed's money pumping is not making it into the economy to stoke the recovery. There is a potential that that money will be deployed swiftly and cause inflation once banks are less risk averse than they are now. There are numerous other examples where federal meddling in the private sector is making it increasingly difficult to make financial decisions. This is causing the private sector to withdraw to safety rather than take reasonable risks based on foreseeable business parameters.
Although I know that it is not in vogue to praise free markets because it has been the received wisdom that the free market was what caused the recent downturn, let me speculate what may have happened if the market was allowed to work in one sector. If the government had allowed GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt several salutory events could very reasonably have happened. The unions back would have been broken, and the pricing of auto labor would have been brought into line with reality. Ford, the US automaker with the best business practices, would have increased market share which would have rewarded the best run US automaker. There would have been little reason to have the "Cash for Clunkers" program which would have helped a cash strapped US treasury. Money which was added to the deficit by the various auto bailout plans would be available to private entrepeneurs who may have spent the savings on building high speed rail systems to take the place of airlines whose business models look increasingly suspect in the current high fuel cost era. The trains would be much more "green" than getting GM and Chrysler to build a few E85 cars.
Alas this is not to be. Our society is instead rapidly dissolving into one that looks to influence beauracrats and elected officials to get our hands on an ever dwindling pot of federal handouts. I recently saw an add for the census that suggested that a good reason to complete census forms was so that your district could get the right amount of federal monies. Daily I hear adds from companies that suggest that because banks received bailouts on their problem loan books we should expect a bailout from our credit card debts. As more and more of our society become leeches, I wonder who will be left to produce the wealth that the we live off of.
In "Atlas Shrugged" Rand describes a world where the producers, led by a man named John Galt, one by one quit because they get tired of seeing the fruits of their labors given to others who had "connections." I fear that we will see that outcome if we continue on our current path. This is not without precedent. The USSR basically collapsed from within because of economic apathy. The communist leaders of China were discerning enough to understand what had happened and began to encourage policies that have loosened government controls on the market. These policies, although not as free a one would like, still have produced a minor economic miracle in the country.
I don't want to find out who is John Galt, but I am afraid that we will all meet him within my lifetime.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Harry Reid is a Jackass but not a Racist...
Over the last several days when listening to the news, I have had to resist the urge to stab myself in the ear with a pencil. This endless droning about Senate Majority "Leader" Harry Reid and his "racist" remarks is enough to wish oneself deaf. Aren't there enough substantive problems with Mr Reid's positions (Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, Bankster Bailout, ad infinitum) to ensure the egregiously hypocritical Republicans don't have to drown us in this nonsense? Worse, because of their politically correct buffoonery, I am feeling compelled to write in the public sphere defending Mr Reid.
My thesis is two parts. Part A: Harry Reid is a jackass. I will not defend this because it is self-evident to any one with two brain cells to rub together and the capability to do 10 seconds of research on Mr Reid. If you are a supporter of the Democratic Party and cannot understand why I have stated the above, you can rest assured that you do not in fact have two brain cells to rub together.
Part B of my thesis, "Harry Reid is not a racist;" while it ought to be self-evident, must be defended. Our (U.S.) cultural presupposition of egalitarianism has made it so that we cannot say anything that does not support the logical idiocy of all men being equal. It is - of course - true that President Obama could not have gotten elected if he was eggplant colored and spoke in an ignorant ebonic type dialect. Mr Reid just stated the obvious truth. Why we have an aversion to truth in our country is difficult for me to understand but it is a fact. Racism is irrational malice towards someone because of his race. Mr Reid has not demonstrated irrational malice towards anyone other than this countries' taxpayers. Truth telling is a fairly rare occurrence for Mr Reid so he ought to be congratulated rather than castigated.
Further, while skin color is really a non-issue, the dialect of our Presidential candidates is supremely important. Why would we want an ignorant sounding president? The ebonic dialect is ignorant. It is not proper spoken English. There are plenty of other dialects that also should not be spoken by the President. Standard southern trailer park english is ignorant sounding and is roundly and justifiably made fun of. If a candidate spoke in a dialect that suggested that his main interests were WWE, Jersey Shore, Lynrd Skynrd and his new meth recipe, we rightly wouldn't vote him into the Presidency. By the same token we should not vote in one who sounds like "he be slappin some hos and biatches dat frontin' bout they work at the crack house." Although one could make an argument that a crack house manager may have been better than the choices we had in '08...
My thesis is two parts. Part A: Harry Reid is a jackass. I will not defend this because it is self-evident to any one with two brain cells to rub together and the capability to do 10 seconds of research on Mr Reid. If you are a supporter of the Democratic Party and cannot understand why I have stated the above, you can rest assured that you do not in fact have two brain cells to rub together.
Part B of my thesis, "Harry Reid is not a racist;" while it ought to be self-evident, must be defended. Our (U.S.) cultural presupposition of egalitarianism has made it so that we cannot say anything that does not support the logical idiocy of all men being equal. It is - of course - true that President Obama could not have gotten elected if he was eggplant colored and spoke in an ignorant ebonic type dialect. Mr Reid just stated the obvious truth. Why we have an aversion to truth in our country is difficult for me to understand but it is a fact. Racism is irrational malice towards someone because of his race. Mr Reid has not demonstrated irrational malice towards anyone other than this countries' taxpayers. Truth telling is a fairly rare occurrence for Mr Reid so he ought to be congratulated rather than castigated.
Further, while skin color is really a non-issue, the dialect of our Presidential candidates is supremely important. Why would we want an ignorant sounding president? The ebonic dialect is ignorant. It is not proper spoken English. There are plenty of other dialects that also should not be spoken by the President. Standard southern trailer park english is ignorant sounding and is roundly and justifiably made fun of. If a candidate spoke in a dialect that suggested that his main interests were WWE, Jersey Shore, Lynrd Skynrd and his new meth recipe, we rightly wouldn't vote him into the Presidency. By the same token we should not vote in one who sounds like "he be slappin some hos and biatches dat frontin' bout they work at the crack house." Although one could make an argument that a crack house manager may have been better than the choices we had in '08...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)