Tesla, Crony Capitalism and Creative Destruction

July 31st, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, an excellent illustration of political favor at work, the type of political favor that is destroying our economy… is the scuffle between Tesla Motor Cars and the Dealerships in New Jersey. Everyone agrees it is about politics and we also tacitly agree the question will come down to which side has the most political favor. Free market consideration is not made at all. This small set to, between the dealerships and Tesla over whether Tesla can sell it’s cars directly to consumers, is all about stopping the free market from innovating and to protect the profits of politically connected dealerships. The best interests of the consumer is not even at question! No one in the media cares if the consumer is hurt or helped by direct sales, only which side has sufficient political favor to push their argument through the New Jersey legislature, because that is all that really counts. This is very damaging to our economy, because the interest of the people is not even a factor, simply the will of the political elite. This shows how far from free market principles we have strayed. Your job, wages, benefits and standard of living are in the balance, but bear no weight on how it turns out.

 

Tesla wants to sell it’s cars directly to the consumer, bypassing the traditional dealership network. The dealerships have asked a court to force Tesla to sell their cars through dealerships and as a result Tesla doesn’t sell cars in New Jersey. Tesla has gone to the New Jersey legislature to get a law passed allowing them to sell their cars direct to consumers. Of course, politics came into it as soon as the smell of money wafted around, and justified by the fact Tesla wanted to do something different then is traditionally done. Because, as Milton Friedman said… when a firm faces competition that sells it’s products at a lower price and better quality, the firm can increase it’s quality and lower prices, or it can go to the government to force the competition closed. That is exactly what the car dealerships have done, they went to government to force Tesla to use them, to protect their profits.

 

The problem is that this strategy always results in stifling innovation, which has a profoundly negative effect on present, and especially future GDP growth, due to the compounding effect of past growth, or lack of it. Schumpeter coined the term, “Creative Destruction” to explain the cycle of growth under the capitalist mode of production. He explained that, as a new idea is implemented, units of production are drawn into realizing that new idea. This results in GDP growth, as more labor, productive facilities and ingenuity are utilized. As the innovation matures, the old systems that are rendered redundant go bust. They go out of business and the recession part of the cycle comes in. As the cost of the units of production become cheaper due to the recessionary pressures, a new idea becomes possible to implement, starting the virtuous cycle again… unless it is short circuited by well meaning but pernicious government programs to protect older more established firms from competition, (like is done in Japan…).

 

The best way would be to let the free market sort it all out. If Tesla’s plan results in angry customers then Tesla will retreat to the traditional strategy of using dealerships to sell it’s cars. Considering the recalls recently on Tesla cars, this might have proven the dealerships argument, without having gone to court and enriching lawyers for nothing. We’ll have to wait and see how the consumer reaction is to how the recalls are handled. If Tesla’s plan does work however, it will have staked out new ground undermining the market reason for dealerships to exist, which would incentivize other companies to stop using dealerships. Either way the market will show the efficiency of the present system or the potential innovative efficiency that could result in creative destruction. With the oceans of paperwork, regulations and political favor that is needed to cross before an innovation can be implemented, the innovative part of the business cycle is drowned.

 

As government policies smother innovation creative destruction is stymied. Lower present GDP growth can be expected, and will be magnified over time due to the effect of compounded growth. That damage to the innovation process by government derails the creative part of the creative destruction by protecting the firms that would face destruction, and so to keep the old inefficient crony capitalism going government destroys the very mechanism of growth of the capitalist system, and by doing that, they lower everyone’s standard of living… but the political Elite get a ton of money and power by doing it.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Common Core Catastrophy

July 28th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, a standard means nothing, if you keep changing it. Should be common sense but the logic of this thinking is lost on the educational elite. The educational system in the US has become so politically oriented, to the progressive new class way of thinking, it has failed it’s primary role as educators to the next generation, and instead become indoctrinators of the children. The total failure of the educational system, and by extension those that have run the educational system, has to be covered up, because people would be outraged to know what a pathetic job the new class has done, with the billions of dollars we have given them from our hard earned money, to educate our children, and instead we get back kids who are incapable of operating in the market system! That is why the new class progressives, who have had a monopoly of control on the school system through the NEA, Boards of education, the bureaucracy and by a hundred other subtle ways, have introduced Common Core, the curriculum that teaches to the absurd test… and therefore teaches absurdity.

 

True, our children will not have the critical thinking, adaptability, work ethic, self control, moral character or wherewithal to compete effectively in the market system, but they will be good little automatons. This fits very well with the progressive’s program to progress the economic systems of the world to communism. Self starters and individualists, those who have the character traits making them ideal to operate in a market system, are the worse kind of people in a Marxist regime, while mindless sloths who are only interested in bread and circuses are perfect. If the progressive agenda is true to their founding, propaganda and promoters, they would have motive to change the educational curriculum to meet their needs, instead of the needs of the children we are paying them to educate.

 

The Common Core curriculum, as it is called in most but not all places, is nothing but the old teaching to the test. In this case a test that has been so politically washed the facts have been bleached out. No one who gets the math portion of this “system” will be able to give two fives for a ten, with out ten minutes, some paper, a pencil… and a calculator to check their work. The history has been watered down to politically favored facts, taken out of context, what good is it to know the orders of battle of every battle fought, land and sea, during the Second World War, if the reason, the context, it was fought in the first place is left out? Isn’t that glorifying the war, and neglecting to teach why it happened, and therefore how to keep it from happening again? The science has been reduced to mere global warming scare mongering and bashing any theory the new class finds dangerous. No sense teaching the scientific method, if we applied it to things we are supposed to believe, we probably wouldn’t believe them.

 

The only way to break the stranglehold the new class progressives have on the educational system is with a non excludable voucher system. Since we as a people and society, have made the decision our children’s education is to be paid by all through the tax system, I accept this parameter, but I dismiss the argument that the government should have a monopoly on education, as a logical result. Give each student a voucher to go to whatever school they and their parents choose. The voucher would be for the full annual cost of the local public school, if the school they choose is more, they pitch in the extra and if it is less, then they get half the savings. People will want the best for their own children, as a result people will put their child into the schools that get the best results. Schools will compete for children on their outcomes for past graduates. Let people be rational maximizers and people will be self interested rightly understood.

 

One last thought, changing the test is the definition of a non standard, not a standard. The only real way to compare students year to year is to have them all take the same test. This is impossible now because the test has been changed so much. Changing the SAT to bend to political pressure has ruined it as a standard. It has become a guide at best and a poor one at that. Moreover, the SAT only looks at only one narrow facet of the human being. I would say it would be better to test a range of attributes, knowledge of course, ability to adapt, a mental stress test would be good, ability to learn and apply, MMPI as well as physical tests, would be better at identifying people’s various merits, like big firms do before they hire. That is… if we actually want to test, sample, study and quantify our children in a standardized way at all, along with the pernicious incentive to teach to the test that a education standard creates, but that is a different article.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

It’s Time to Dismantle the UN

July 24th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, an organization that stands on the rooftops proclaiming it’s good intentions, who recently was caught twice hiding ordinance among school children, along with many other times they have been caught in various nefarious circumstances… would actually be good. The food for oil scandal, where no one suffered any negative consequences for it, is another example. Moreover, these are only two of many cases where this organization has been a pernicious force in the world, is reason enough the United Nations should be dismantled.

 

Hamas rockets have been found a second time in another UN sponsored school in Gaza. Once they were exposed the rockets were turned over to Hamas. What if a few of those rockets were fired from the grounds of that school and Israel had retaliated? Some of the school children would most probably have been killed, UN personnel would also die, UN infrastructure would have been damaged, and Hamas would make propaganda ink from the blood of the children, with the duplicitous help of the UN officials who abetted the crime. That the UN has been caught more than once is telling of where the UN stands.

 

If the UN is a noncombatant neutral party, then why were the rockets turned back over to those who had so nakedly put the lives of children, UN personnel and infrastructure in mortal danger? A more reasonable response, to one party putting another in such jeopardy, would be anger and some form of punishment to prevent further violations. The UN has acted in exactly the opposite way, the way allies would respond, like when the sinking of the Lusitania was hastened by the burning munitions she had stored in her cargo bay. Britain wasn’t vilified by the US government for putting ammo in a luxury liner, but Germany was, for stopping those weapons from reaching their goal, because the US and Britain were allies.

 

A democratic body is only as strong or as virtuous as it’s members. It’s highest aspirations, those of it’s most visionary members, and it’s darkest proclivities, ooze out of it’s Id. The Id of a democratic body is made up of the most unjust, selfish and tyrannical of it’s members, in the case of the UN, the world’s most despotic countries. That is why the UN can call to the highest aspirations of mankind yet serve the darkest impulses. In democratic bodies as in men, the Id is like an elephant and the ego is like the rider, it is the elephant that does the work and the rider steers as best he can.

 

The short of it is that, not all the members of the UN have to be explicitly on the side of Hamas, only those who are willing to do something about it need to be, and the entire organization is ipso facto on the side of Hamas. That is how they can find rockets in a UN school and Hamas faces no condemnation from the UN for it, in fact, they get their rockets back! The UN doesn’t even charge a storage fee despite the risks! No matter if ninety nine percent of the organization is truly neutral, and that last percent is willing to act, if the others won’t forcefully stop it, the ninety nine percent become irrelevant.

 

Sadly this is just the nature of large democratic organizations like the UN. In such bodies only the views of dictators, despots, president’s for life and a few executives are represented. The needs of the world’s people is a weapon, to be used in the struggle to loot the western “rich” countries, and help each other hold onto power as long as possible. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy of the UN is entirely made up of New Class sycophants, creating an ideology of State worship within the very mechanism of the UN. They forgive the most heinous crimes against humanity of their allies, the Marxists, while nit picking the market system’s every fault, to the point of assigning many faults to it, that rightly belong to their own Marxist ideology of the omnipotence of the State… all making the immense power the UN wields, a very dangerous thing indeed.

 

When a body is made up to accomplish a thing, and history shows it does the opposite of what it was supposed to do, isn’t it simply logical to disband it? When an organization claims to do good, while constantly being caught in evil, isn’t it just common sense to realize something’s wrong? Wouldn’t you say that it is the height of ignorant egoism, to believe that regardless of the fact an organization is damaging the world’s economy, endangering liberty and undermining democracy, that thing should go on, simply because the goal is so lofty? Making such a spurious argument shows the malevolence of the arguer, in both the sheer distortion of the facts, as well as promoting the negative effects on mankind winning the argument would have. This is exactly the argument those pointy headed New Class progressives in the UN are making though… and getting you and I to pay for it.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

 

 

The Humanitarian Crisis at the Border

July 21st, 2014

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the human catastrophe at the boarder is entirely the making, continuing and politically profiteering, of President Obama. He created it by the pernicious incentives he set up with the Dream Act, he is continuing it by not stopping it, and is politically profiteering from his own humanitarian crisis, and exploiting the suffering of children, while claiming the other side has no compassion! The willing useful idiots in the New Class’ media go along cheerfully while their own prerogatives are being reformed into a gilded cage. Not only to exploit the random suffering of children, but to be the primary cause of their suffering, is pretty low, but that is what we have come to expect from President Obama.

 

Incentives are the reasons we do the things we do. On a small scale, what type of bread you buy is dependent on incentives, flavor, texture, price, etc… all factor into our decision which bread to buy. Every decision is done this way. Some incentives are strong and some are weak but consciously or not we take them into some consideration. The Dream Act was where Obama by edict, decided that all children and families that met an arbitrary definition Obama deemed “just,” were to be granted legal status, is just such an example of a strong incentive. The message went out all over central America… a land torn with communist insurgencies, Marxists winning elections, and then immediately repressing their political foes when they do get power, along with all the human suffering that comes with every incarnation of Marxist government ever visited on mankind, all backed by Obama’s political allies… “Your children can go to America!” and you have the makings of a stampede, created by Obama.

 

Obama could stop the inrush immediately by sending the children back to their homes. The moment the children showed up back home, filled with their horror stories, the source of the flood of victims, and make no mistake that is what these children are, victims, would dry up at the source. Once the flood stops, the unimaginable things these children and in many cases their whole family, are being subjected to, would stop. The incentive would be gone, if they are not staying, there is no sense going. But they are staying, which creates more of a vacuum to those that are left, sucking them away. Notice how sending them back is always out of the question in the unbiased media?

 

The Unbiased media is run by and for the New Class and a huge influx of illegals only helps them. Illegal immigrants, no matter how well educated, never vie against the New Class for jobs. Imagine an illegal alien, attorney, dentist, news caster, economist, college professor, etc… the New Class’ jobs are not threatened by illegal immigrants, because illegal immigrants will form an underclass. The New Class gets to exploit them though. How many lawyers, dentists, news casters and college professors have illegal aliens for, cooks, landscapers, carpenters and maids? So, why not cheer lead for more illegal aliens and especially amnesty, because those former illegals will cheerfully vote for their oppressors, the progressive/socialist/New Class, just like they supported the socialists in their home countries.

 

Shouldn’t the progressives exploit the human suffering, the progressives created, after all isn’t that why they created it? The elite in the progressive movement are typical New Class “liberals,” they do what is in their best interests, and they benefit by illegal immigration, economically and politically. The incentives are clear for them. That is why the New Class liberals charge anyone who wants an end to the suffering as, heartless, mean and racist. They get to vilify those who seek to stop the suffering, and by doing so, continue the misery. All the while, the political abomination grown this way, is entangling all of our Constitutional Rights, like a golden kudzu vine.

 

We have to remember these are children we are talking about though. That fact can never get outside of our thinking when we debate this subject. So we must ask ourselves, do we want to continue throwing children into the grinding wheels of this political machine, to “save” those that have already come here, keeping the wheels turning, grinding, so that a political faction can get it’s wants met at cost to all of society? To consider the suffering of a child as political currency is to be dead inside, to create misery to be used as political currency is to be soulless, especially in children, and so, only a person with no soul, no moral compass and not even a smidgin of simple human compassion would do such a thing. Yet our President has…

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Immorality of Presumption

July 16th, 2014

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, most if not all the evils visited on humanity, have been as a direct result of presumption. Someone presumes to know what is best for another, society or humanity and acts according to their prescription of their idea of “right.” Of course, their remedy is never for themselves or their family, it is always for others to pay the price for the presumer’s cure. Behind such presumption lay great hubris. When someone believes he or she is so much more intelligent, wise and beneficent than others, is the path to presumption. Recognizing hubristically fueled presumption as a source for evil in our world, is the first step to solving those evils, so that no one ever has to suffer under the presumption of arrogance again.

 

So much of what is wrong with this world, crimes against humanity for instance, are from those who presume to know what is best. From the Eugenics movement to slavery, those who have presumed to know what is best have done great evil, often in a perverted sense of justice. As I have explained before in past articles, justice can be summed up by the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No one who was or is a advocate for eugenics would sterilize themselves, their solution is for others, since by their selfish standards, they are the best and brightest. This shows the absolute lack of justice in their actions, since doing something to another that the actor would never allow done to themselves, is in direct contravention of the golden rule.

 

Presumption is the basis for civil crime as well. The bank robber presumes to have the right to the funds of others, because they believe their needs and wants trump those of others, since he or she sees his or her own wants and needs close at hand, while they see the needs and wants of others at a distance. Therefore they presume their need for immediate wealth should come before the needs and wants of those people who earned the money by the sweat of their brow. This same logic applies to those who steal from the wealthy. Even speeding is based in hubris and presumption that the speeder is such a good driver they need not follow the speed limit. No matter what crime you use for an example it is founded in presumption and presumption is rooted in hubris.

 

Politicians are the greatest hubristic presumers there are especially progressive politicians. They presume that because they won a beauty contest, they have the democratically bestowed right to visit evils on others, while they themselves would be deeply offended if they were yoked with those same evils. This is one reason why politicians never hold themselves to their own laws. The biggest advocates for tax increases universally cheat on theirs and when they get caught there are never consequences. This is why politicians whittle away at any restraint there is on their power, because they arrogantly presume they are above any foolish Constitutional limits on their actions. Their hubristic argument usually goes, “Aren’t they the representatives of the people?” While they make this presumptuous contention they violate the golden rule without a thought.

 

Religions also fall prey to presumption. Those who are rabid followers of this or that religion presume they will go to heaven and no one else will. Atheists presume that even though they undermine the religion of others by the spurious worship of science, if they are wrong, they will go to heaven anyway. When one religious community attacks another it is presumption that is the “moral” underpinnings of their actions. Truth told, religion should be the place where presumption is the least, yet it is often where people presume the most, because all saintly religions have the golden rule as their foundation, and the golden rule is the opposite of hubris and presumption.

 

Presumption provides those who would visit the most heinous crimes against humanity cover for their hubristic egoism. To look at a fellow human being, and presume that the other should be sterilized because they are “mentally deficient” by the observer’s arbitrary standard, to be so arrogant one enslaves another, to have such a lack of a moral compass that someone kills another because they disagree with that person’s religious belief, or any of a thousand other presumptions that give people free reign to do what they arrogantly believe is “right,” is always based on presumption fueled by hubris. Moreover, that the hubristic presumer never subjects him or herself to their own remedy, is a naked violation of the golden rule and therefore is the definition of injustice, proves the hubris and presumption better than a thousand pages written on the subject. Yes, we as members of the human race need to recognize this predilection of ours to presume what is best for another, and learn to mind our own business, else we are the the villains in our own story.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

 

 

The Arab Israeli Conflict

July 13th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, no matter where you stand on the Arab Israeli conflict you have to agree on one thing, If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be peace, and if the Israelis put down their weapons… there would be genocide. That one fact is plain as day but is never spoken aloud, except in Arabic, it is only given a nudge nudge wink wink by the UN. That most of the world’s governments are on the Arab’s side, shows that most of the people in governments around the world, support and foster genocide. There can be no other conclusion. This is the unspoken truth behind the Arab Israeli conflict.

 

The argument that Israel was the land of the Palestinians and the Israelis pushed them out is begging the question. How were the Jews expelled from Israel in the first place? How did the Middle East go from an entirely Christian region to an entirely Muslim region? How did the world’s borders get drawn and how is it that America is no longer American Indian lands? The evil history of the human race is one of conquest and usurpation. The argument that the Israelis are occupiers is every bit as relevant as to argue Europe should give back all it’s lands to the original hunter gatherers who the farmers pushed out.

 

Even the Koran acknowledges that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jews. The Christian Bible, the Jewish Torah and Talmud, as well as the Koran all agree, God gave Israel to the Jewish people.

There are Egyptian steels that record Israel was the land of the Jews. Roman historical documents from the era tell of the Jews being dispersed from Israel by Roman legions. Archeological evidence is piling up proving that the Jewish people did indeed live and rule the land of Israel, and so, as a matter of primary ownership, the postage stamp of land we are talking about, and make no mistake, it is nothing more than a tiny dot of formerly arid land, is the historic home of the Jewish people.

 

Imagine a small Jewish city on the outskirts of Yemen randomly firing rockets at the Yemenite population while chanting “Death to Yemen!”. How do you suppose the government of Yemen would respond? How would any Islamic state respond to a Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist or Christian enclave, shooting rockets at them while calling for their extermination? How would the UN respond? Would the UN criticize the Islamic state for defending it’s citizens? No, of course not. What if the Palestinians win and wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth? How would the world respond? When Hitler was asked, what will history record about us if we exterminate the Jews? Hitler responded, “Who remembers the Armenians?!” Well, I ask you, does anyone remember the Armenians? Do you?

 

Moreover, does anyone in their right mind believe for a moment that if Israel were wiped from the map, and every Jew on the planet murdered, there would be peace? Only a fool of the highest order would fall for that scam. No, the fact is, if Israel were wiped away, those that did it would be emboldened to continue their crusade across the world. World war would inevitably result with all the horror, violence and terror that would entail, but every single one of us would experience it. To hate someone who is different, is an unfortunate part of the human condition, but to hate so much that one would commit genocide, must be inculcated from an early age.

 

Since everyone knows, but dare not speak the truth, that the goal of Hamas, Hezbollah and every other terrorist organization, and sadly, many governments Islamic and secular, is to kill every Jew on the planet, it is clear that anyone who supports that genocidal movement, must also support the genocide it calls for. But unlike a tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, there will be millions of voices proclaiming the crime, millions of villains who’s souls will be blackened by their villainy and millions of bystanders who will have abetted the slaughter. Imagine having your soul tainted by genocide when you stand before God almighty? How would you answer that damning charge? Pascal’s wager would be a truly stupid bet at that point… wouldn’t it?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Spurious Logic and Confusing a State of Mind with a State of Being

July 10th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the progressive elite often use spurious logic, to fool the people into confusing a state of mind with a state of being. To use spurious logic is to make an argument that appears on the surface to be logical, but is in fact fallacious, and is meant to deceive. By this means we can be fooled into acting against our own self interests and benefiting the arguer who uses spurious logic. If we seek to be rational maximizers, then it is important for us to know the difference, and be able to see a deception for what it is. In the realm of spurious logic, arguing a thing is other than it actually is, can be quite easy and very effective.

 

People argue in spurious logic to trick others into acting against their own self interest. This is an old con man’s trick. Claiming to be a bank auditor, and getting an old person to “loan” them money to help catch a crooked bank teller, who the con man says is ripping off the bank, is one example. The logic appears impeccable to the victim but is in fact fallacious. Many people have lost their life savings by this scam. The con man gets the victim to act against his or her own self interest, by convincing the victim something is true when it is not, using spurious logic. Twisting a state of mind into a state of being is no different.

 

A state of mind is essentially how we perceive the world. Our perception is to us, reality, it is our opinion and guides action. Examples of a state of mind are, prejudice, justice, friendship, humility, love and fear. These are not every example, nor are they an exhaustive list, but they are illustrative for the purposes of our discussion. A person can act in a bigoted way, we can act justly and we can be friendly, but that doesn’t make these things a state of being, because the root of the actions are the opinions and feelings of the actor. Our actions follow our mindset, not the other way around. A state of mind is an internal feeling, belief or thought, that effects the external world through our actions.

 

A state of being is something that is external that effects our internal state of mind. Examples include, the environment, the economy and illness. Again, this is not a comprehensive list but is sufficient to illustrate our point. A state of being is something objective that effects our subjective mindset. If the temperature is cold our mind registers it with a feeling of cold. Our feeling of cold doesn’t make the temperature lower. Just as an expanding economy might enrich us and make us feel more wealthy, but our feeling of wealth doesn’t make the economy grow faster, (despite the implications of the theories of John Maynard Keynes’ aggregate supply aggregate demand model of economics), and illness makes us feel sick, it is not that we decide to feel sick and as a result we become ill, (except in a diseased mind which is itself an illness external to the participant’s subjective mind). A state of being is external while a state of mind is internal.

 

Modern sophists like to claim a state of mind is in fact a state of being and have visited all kinds of mischief on mankind as a result. To claim a state of mind is a state of being, or vise versa, is how absurd premises get thought of as truth, and truth get thought of as falsehood, then are acted upon in the body politic. Well meaning projects to mitigate the plight of the poor are premised on conflating a state of being with a state of mind. Poverty is a state of being, but the assumption of welfare programs, is that poverty is intrinsic to the individual, as such the individual is unable to change his or her station, and cannot survive without a government handout. A great deal of damage is done to society, the economy and the poor themselves, by this pernicious notion. Not the least of which is to trap multiple generations of people in poverty, destroy the nuclear family and crush the work ethic of whole communities, all leading to more poverty.

 

Other examples of confusing a state of mind with a state of being are everywhere in the progressive playbook. From abortion to woman’s rights, using spurious logic like mixing of a state of being with a state of mind, is their go to position. Those who call attention to the absurdity of their stances are vilified as haters and bigots to deflect the criticism, which in itself is twisting a state of mind into a state of being. As you recall, bigotry and hate are states of mind, but arguing that a person’s stance on a state of being, (objective reality), proves a certain state of mind, (subjective reality), is like claiming a scalding burn is all in one’s mind. There will always be gullible people in the world, it is a fact of life, but most of us are capable, upon reflection, of recognizing spurious logic, especially if we are warned. Consider this warning.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Why Our jobs are dwindling, Wages are Stagnating and Wall Street is Raging.

July 6th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

I wonder, why would a big company spend money on plant, equipment or it’s workforce, when government is all too happy to drive the competitors out of business with regulation? Government regulations protect companies with political favor from any real competition and all large corporations have it. The lack of competition to large firms allows them to concentrate on giant bonuses for top executives, instead of the tedious drudgery of vying with a competitor by improving products, lowering costs or innovating. Now that government has shown all a firm need do is give to the right political campaigns, and their markets will be protected from any real competition by government bureaucrats intent on punishing the “rich,” that is what all self interested CEOs will do. This all leads our economy to stagnation, a stagnation that we see every time a new economic number comes out and is spun by the unbiased press, to make it appear better than it actually is.

 

People are self interested, some pretend to be altruistic, usually to fool others into giving them something they otherwise wouldn’t. Those in government fall into that category. They seek to appear to be virtuous only to have their need for power and wealth met by manipulative means. That is why the elite vilify the wealthy, while protecting the wealthy’s riches and privilege with regulations that are billed as “fair, protecting the consumer, saving jobs and for the children,” when nothing could be further from the truth. The elite want to appear to be virtuous, because as Thrasymachus inferred in Plato’s Republic, It is better to appear virtuous and be a villain than to be virtuous and be perceived as a villain. Our leaders know this very well and practice it through regulations sold as virtue but in reality are villainous.

 

The market system is built on innovation. That is one reason it is so dynamic. Ideas are the oxygen to the market but like oxygen they corrode older more politically favored industries and firms. Older businesses, especially very large companies, are less nimble and have a hard time competing with smaller more innovative ones. Efficiency of scale refers to the ability of a large firm to mass produce a product, not to innovate. This is one reason mergers and acquisitions are so touted by the Wall Street press corps. When government seeks to protect their cronies with regulation, innovation is limited to places where older larger firms are not doing business, as such, most innovation is undermined. The buggy whip industry would be alive and well in today’s regulatory environment. As innovation is limited by regulation our economy must necessarily suffer.

 

Small businesses are the drivers of innovation, and regulations always effects small businesses more than large ones. Small businesses are the drivers of new employment. Every economist worth his stripes will tell you this. Old firms pay more but don’t produce jobs. Job creation comes from innovative small firms. As regulation protects large politically favored firms, at the expense of smaller ones, the engine of job creation in an economy is shut off. Without new jobs created by innovators, aggregate employment stagnates, and since wages are a function of the availability of labor versus demand for it, a stagnant job market puts an inexorable downward pressure on wages, which also benefits the top management of large firms, by driving down labor costs and freeing up money for bonuses and golden parachutes for top management of those firms.

 

Examples of regulation that does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to are everywhere. Dodd Frank is but one. It has put incredible pressure on banks to grow “Too Big to Fail,” and is driving out smaller banks, due to the huge costs it puts on banks. This has magnified the danger to our economy of banks that are too big to fail. Remember, small banks are the primary source of funds for small business start ups, further limiting the competitive forces of the job market and the market system as a whole.

 

Innovation is destroyed by regulations, but that effect is acceptable to those who are making a killing from the system as it is, they don’t want to have to face competition and so they give to the political party that will protect their markets, drive down their labor costs and defend their bonuses, the most. The top management of every company understands the rhetoric of class warfare is only a scam the elite use to do just that. One last point is that lawyers, economists, and the elite in politics, media and business, are all members of the New Class. As I have shown, regulation protects the new class, at the expense of every other class in society. The proof is in the fact that the more the elite regulate our economy, and vilify themselves, the richer and more powerful the new class gets, and the poorer the rest of us get, even as they wring their hands at the gap between rich and poor, only to promote more self serving regulation. So I ask you again, why would a company invest in plant, tools and it’s workforce, when all it needs to do to protect itself, is to keep the rigged system going?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Logic of Liberty

July 2nd, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, chaotic liberty is the single best means to societal prosperity, as controlled dependence is the best means to universal poverty. This is true not only in an economic sense but in humanistic terms as well. When people live in liberty, we must self control and by doing so we focus our minds, strengthen our spirit and become self reliant, chaotic liberty makes us more human. It is in a focused mind, spirituality and self reliance that we gain the economic advantages of liberty. Controlled dependence dulls the mind, crushes the spirit and destroys self reliance, in short controlled dependence reduces human beings to mere selfish animals. Human heartedness grows in liberty and shrinks in dependence. This is so obvious it is sad that government should seek to put people into a state of dependence while eliminating liberty. Because by doing so, it is equally as clear that diminishing humanity to a herd of egoistic animals, that see their fellows as a means instead of an end in themselves, government undermines the very argument for government.

 

That is not to say Chaos is liberty or that control is dependence, it is to say that some level of personal chaos is requisite for liberty and dependence breeds people who must be controlled. If a people who have become dependent are thrust into a state of liberty, chaos, violence and poverty will immediately result. If a different people who have become used to liberty are forced into dependence there is a faux sense of control. In a state of liberty, people self control and are do not need a heavy handed government to force them to be virtuous, but where people are dependent, people do need a tyrannical government, to enforce civil equanimity. The one is because the people self regulate and the other because people have lost the ability to self regulate.

 

When people are used to living in liberty we must control our emotions, actions and thoughts. When living in a state of liberty, everyone is at liberty, and so disturbing the civil weal is counter productive. People learn this lesson at an early age when they live in liberty. Laws need not be draconian to keep people from each others throats because people have learned to be self controlled. The society becomes more mature, civil and polite. Moreover, when people are self controlled and at liberty, it is the nature of the human being to seek to better him or herself. As each improving their situation all of society is economically improved.

 

Those poor shells of human beings that have become used to living in dependence never grow out of childhood. They become disconnected from the greater society and demand their wants and needs be met by someone else. Since the very definition of dependence is to be dependent on someone else, the fruits of another’s labor, for everything, so dependent people see others as a means to their own ends, instead of ends in themselves. To put it another way, people who have become used to being dependent see others as things and not as human beings. It is much easier to steal from a thing, the morality of killing a thing is irrelevant and you don’t open the door for a thing that is handicapped. Civility in society is destroyed and all that matters is instant gratification. This shows that controlled dependence is the path to chaos while chaotic liberty is the path to civilization.

 

How to change people who have become used to controlled dependence into self controlled, spiritual, civil and focused human beings? Obviously if liberty were thrust upon them they would devolve to a state of anarchy. We have seen this many times in history. A people get liberated, not by their own action, and the entire society falls into violence, chaos and corruption. The means to maturing a people is by the elite, the leaders of society, leading by example. The leaders must be spiritual, self controlled and honest. That would be a giant step but not all that is required. A market system must also exist. This is because the market system trains people to be human. If someone comes into your store to buy a couch, you care nothing if they are Hindi, Asian or Hutu, those groupings become subservient attributes to their being buyers. If the way to get ahead in a society is to meet the needs and wants of others, people will happily become civil, spiritual and self controlled.

 

Unfortunately governments prefer people to be dependent. Dependents have no independent voice only as a screaming mob can they get heard. If government likes what the chanting mob says they simply give in and are seen as benefactors, if government doesn’t like the message they clamp down violently and are seen as the protectors of societal tranquility. Since the reason political parties exist is to get and hold power, nothing more nothing less, and dependents depend on their benefactors, if those benefactors are a faction of government, that faction can count on their dependents for support against other political factions. This is not only a path to getting political power but of holding it as well. This is why there have been so very few examples in human history of liberty, and so many of dependence, poverty, and despotism.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Our Catch Me if You Can Form of Governance

June 30th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, no law that is enforced on the people, when broken, has the negative effect on our society, culture, economy and good government, than when our lawmakers violate Our Constitution and their own laws. To argue that robbing a liqueur store has anywhere near the profoundly destructive effect on our society, as an elected leader breaking his own law, is absurd. I challenge anyone to argue differently. To claim that a person speeding along in a car on the highway is a greater threat to public safety than a lawmaker who undermines our Constitution for political expediency, is to assert that up is down and down is up. We all know this instinctively, but we happily go along when the liqueur store bandit is punished with years behind bars, while the lawmaker sees no negative consequences for his much more destructive actions. We shake our heads as we pass the guy or gal pulled over for speeding, and ignore the direct assaults on our Constitution, by those very people who have sworn an oath to protect it. Then we wonder why our prisons are full, our economy is shrinking and we are not even safe in our own homes.

 

We all have a sense of justice. As I wrote in a previous article, justice is a state of mind not a state of being. Justice is treating everyone the same. The speeder faces negative consequences for speeding, in the form of fines, points on their licenses and increased insurance costs. A lawmaker who undermines the protections guaranteed to us by our Constitution faces no negative consequences at all. The worst that can happen to him or her, is to have their usurpation of our collective Rights overturned by a court, and that is only temporary until the court can be stacked with people who also want to undermine that facet of our rights. Clearly, of the two, the speeder faces far more punishment for his minor infraction than the politician who damages our very Constitution and way of life. This is the definition of injustice.

 

The damage to our society, economy, culture and good governance is far worse when a lawmaker violates his own laws. This is because people are far less likely to mimic a masked bandit holding up a liqueur store than we are to follow the example of a leader violating his own laws. The bandit is a person who is outside society, but the political leader is at the top of society. Moreover, no matter how draconian the punishment for holding up a liqueur store is, if people watch their political leaders violating their own laws with no punishment at all, there will be more crime. As Confucius said, “we follow our leaders.” If they are corrupt, especially if they face no real consequences for it, we will follow them and be corrupt ourselves. We don’t follow the lone gunman into criminality we follow our leaders into crime. That is why our jails are so full and we are not safe in our own homes.

 

As lawmakers use their positions of authority to enrich themselves and their patrons our economy is damaged exponentially more than a liqueur store robbery. The thief damages a small segment of our economy, but the lawmaker who passes laws and regulations, to protect some politically favored industry or patron, damages the entire economy, not only now but forever. The market system depends on equal treatment of people, (justice), but when the politically favored get special treatment, nations become polarized into the haves and the have nots. It is not a government bureaucrat that ensures economic fairness, they destroy economic justice, because they treat people differently. Eventually, government does so much damage to the economy, people become stuck in the station they are born into, the poor have no way out because the rich are the only ones who can get through the regulations. The gap grows ever larger and the poor are tricked into supporting a system, socialism, where they are forever poor and the powerful are forever wealthy.

 

You and I are forced to follow every law to the letter, even if we are ignorant of it, but the lawmaker, those who actually write laws, can simply claim ignorance… this is a clear injustice. We have a gut understanding of that injustice, but instead of holding our political leaders to their own laws, we hold them in awe. As our Constitutional Rights are crushed under the jack boot of ever more tyrannical authority, with no negative consequences, the usurpation of them will grow ever more bold and ever more destructive. We are held to the law so our society can function, but when our leaders are not, the functioning of society and the economy, are damaged far worse than any liqueur store robbery. As we look around ourselves, at our crumbling standard of living, the high crime rate, the scourge of drugs, school shootings, the rise of existential threats and general malaise, we must remember, it is not the speeder, the thief or the madman who is responsible, it is the corrupt lawmakers and those who allow and embrace their corruption, who are the real villains. Until we as a society and people learn this, and demand consequences for the political elite who violate their own laws and our Constitutions, the slide to despotism, poverty and chaos will accelerate.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin