Archive for January, 2011

Revolution and It’s Natural Outcomes

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems self evident to me that a thing that has happened in the past is possible in the future. To argue otherwise is to argue history has no meaning and empirical evidence cannot be relied upon. This would require all science and knowledge to be thrown out logically. Since this is not possible then what has happened in the past is possible in the future. Both to the good and to the bad.

A good set of examples are the peaceful revolutions of the Eastern Bloc. The Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia and the Solidarity movement in Poland were peaceful and led to stable republics. Even the nationalist breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Check Republic and the Slovak Republics were peaceful and led to little bloodshed. They are shining examples of how to move from a tyranny to a Republic.

Bad examples have been far more plentiful. From the revolutions in South America that led to “President’s for life” through revolutions that led to communist governments that murdered millions of their citizens to revolutions that ushered in theocratic regimes, with an end times philosophy that they shout from the rooftops, but the rest of the world is too scared to face and turn their heads in shame and willful ignorance.

Revolution usually means the ushering in of a new tyrant instead of replacing him with a true republic. The new tyrant is afraid, that the public outcry that brought him into power might oust him as well, and is vicious in keeping the people sufficiently down, to prevent this from happening. Then the people are shoved from mere tyranny, into being subject to the whims of a panicked despot, terrified of his people and willing to do anything as a result.

History shows us that when there is not a viable oppositions party the government devolves into tyranny. In the worst case scenario the government devolves to Lebanon in the 1980’s or Somalia today. In these cases we see the result of factions who are not interested in the good of society but only their own good. Willing to do any amount of harm to others to get their desires met, they show themselves to be the worst kind of child… The screaming brat. They scream at the injustice they feel and mete out far worse injustice on others without batting an eye. The people who control these factions are evil incarnate.

When historical conditions and decisions are revisited the results are always the same. For the good or for the bad it is the people who suffer the most. Possibly because the people are a blunt weapon in the war of tyrannical politics. Too blunt to force their will but powerful enough that no tyrant can stand it for long. This blunt weapon is perfect for the use of a potential tyrant. The potential tyrant convinces the people or at least a small cadre that they will be a benevolent tyrant and will serve the people… As fodder.

But if a new means were employed necessarily a new outcome would occur. If we add vinegar to soda then a chemical reaction occurs that boils over the container. But if we mix neutral water in the soda then we get a different reaction. It may seem like we must immediately change from base to neutral but that may cause negative side effects and this is exactly what we have been talking about. Changing an input to a situation changes the outcome.

What if, in cases where the people are fed up with a tyrant who has been in power for 30 years, what the people really need is a NUMA. A branch of government that is powerful enough to force the tyrant to follow his own laws. Chain the tyrant and he becomes a dog. Placid and protective. Unchained and roaming in packs, tyrants are subject to rabies and can turn on their masters, (the people). Dogs and tyrants require a chain. The best chain for tyrants, both benevolent and malevolent, is the NUMA.


Thursday, January 27th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there is never a dearth of people who think they know how others should live. They themselves are reticent to have any other person have any input into how they should live even to the point of outlawing thought and feelings. I like to call them protyranists.

While no protyranist believes they themselves will come under the tyrants purview he or she loves to level moral outrage at despicable acts of greed, things that are unconscionable, and the like. Making moral judgments while denying the other side the right to make moral judgments.

But if making a moral judgment is wrong then making a moral judgment is wrong. It cannot be that making a moral judgment about a thing that is not only self evident but is empirical truth, is wrong, while making a politically based ‘moral’ judgment, with class warfare as the premise, is acceptable. It simply cannot be logically. Yet, it is unquestioned, when it is done.

We all live in a cave, according to Francis Bacon, and we see the world from our unique point of view. From our perspective the way another lives may be totally unacceptable to us but we tolerate the other’s right to live as they do. We allow them the right to destroy themselves, or to succeed, it is their life, not ours to play with.

Like most all the situation comedies you and I have ever watched. Lucy interferes with Ethel’s life, with the most loving intentions, and the whole thing goes awry… Comedy is always based on some point of irony in human nature. The irony is that no matter how well our intentions, when we interfere in the lives of others, we have great potential to do great harm.

The only time we have the duty to interfere is when someone is damaging the human rights of another. This is widely recognized as the definition of when the State has the right to interfere with the rights of the individual.

For example; If an individual is offended at their neighbor planting pansies, the offended neighbor has no right to interfere with the neighbor with poor taste’s flowers, but if a neighbor sees their neighbor being strangled, they have a duty to interfere with the person’s rights, who is strangling their neighbor. The State is exactly the same.

The difference is that the State has a monopoly on violence. Willingly given from the people as a means to stem the violence of the brutish among us. We, as civilized citizens of a nation, give up our right to retribution, to the State, to be carried out in a manner that will have the most settled and ordered, (for society and the individual’s), outcome possible.

Another of Francis Bacon’s idols is the idol of the theater. Protyranists love to us this against the people they seek to tyrannize. They construct some elaborate scheme that seems true even when you think about it. The protyranist gets the scientific community to gather around the idea by making it very lucrative to do so. Then systematically evict anyone with a confounding question. Eventually people in the scientific community will get the hint and will go along.

People follow what they believe the scientists believe. We all give the scientist the benefit of the doubt in part because of the scientific ethos. To doubt all theories until proven. But even this has led science astray more often than not. The line of advancement in our understanding of science, or the mind of God, has not been linear, it has been more of a fractal. So, we have been led astray by people who we trusted, and who trusted themselves.

When this scheme, the protyranist has cooked up, comes to fruition, it will require drastic shifts of power to the State from the individual. The protyranist has his dreams fulfilled as he gains power over the foolish masses. He can then improve their lives, just like Lucy did Ethel…

International Competition for Jobs

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the fundamental misconception, that world leaders and the public at large have about jobs and the world economy, is that the various countries of the world are in competition for jobs, when nothing could be further from the truth. The reality of the situation is, as more people move to specialization within the market system and away from subsistence farming the more demand for jobs grows, around the world. The flow of labor is like water always seeking a low point. It is the actions of government’s in their futile attempt to marshal the forces of the market, to get jobs within their countries, at the expense of jobs in another, that government‘s effect competition.

Most all economic historians agree that the depression was in large part caused by the Smoot Hawley act and other similar laws and tariffs passed around the world at the beginning of the 1930’s. Those anti global trade laws resulted in the collapse of international trade. Jobs were lost in every country. The unemployment rate rose to staggering heights despite the willingness of people to work. International trade is empirically, historically, even if counter intuitively, proven to create jobs.

The demand for low skilled employment is supplied from a giant pool of uneducated people on the planet. However, as jobs flow into an area the work force inevitably becomes more educated. Even the lowest skill job is civilizing. The need to meet a schedule, the need to be dutiful in time, money and personal management, gives people the sense of what it is to be “self interested rightly understood.” As the workforce in a low educated area become more and more active in the market the level of education rises.

As all this happens the demand for what was formerly “luxury” items increases. This demand must be filled from abroad. The increased trade grows the need for workers to handle the logistics and so forth. The demand for labor not only rises but the demand for educated labor goes up as well. When employment has neared saturation, of those that want to be employed, the cost of labor rises. This drives the demand for new low skilled labor to the next lowest area.

The point is, that the jobs don’t move, they evolve. Low skilled low paid jobs, evolve into higher skilled higher paid jobs, that are better suited to increase the expectations of the people… thus aggregate demand. Even the evolved jobs are not in direct competition, in the international marketplace, unless government regulation drives them away.

Here is the crux of why the Elite have a problem with international trade and globalism… It gives people and businesses, the ability to leave onerous regulation, and go where government policies are more favorable to free enterprise. The Elite want to pass poorly thought out regulation along with insane legislation, that the Elite carve out exemptions for themselves, with impunity. They want there to be no consequences to their actions, legislatively, to reflect the lack of consequences to their personal actions. All of which would be corrected with a NUMA.

So it is not that countries are in competition for jobs within the international arena of demand but the Elite want impunity for their actions on the job markets in their countries. That is why Smoot Hawley was enacted, to give the progressives in America, at the time, the ability to grapple the markets under control, without people and business fleeing to other countries. The market turned out to be far more slippery than the progressive Elite thought it would be, and the Constitution kept getting in the way, forcing the Elite to go back to international trade.

The countries that reengaged with international trade in the 1940’s, after the war, did very well economically, those that didn’t became Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina etc… Their countries government’s became more introverted and more focused on protecting what they had than in opening up to international trade. They have made the same mistakes over and over. Enacting legislation in the 1980’s to protect their fledgling computer startups hobbled the rest of the economy is only one example.

We see over and over, everywhere we look, that countries that open up to international trade become more wealthy. As a nation, as a people and individually, the wealth of a nation grows. The modern example of China shows us the advantage to opening up to international trade. The fact that China has huge subsidies and is running down the road to oligarchal capitalism, headlong into the brick wall that blocks that road, is not in any way confounding. It is not the subsidies, the tariffs or the currency manipulation that has brought so much new wealth into China, it is international trade.


Thursday, January 20th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when a solution is found to a problem it is wise to use that solution even if we might find it personally distasteful lest the problem become intractable and pernicious. Like the wheel. There may be a better solution than the wheel but the wheel is so effective that we ceased looking for an alternative long ago. In fact the ancient Mayans may have found a different solution they had demonstrable knowledge of the wheel and used it in their toys but not industry.

It is when the solution comes up short, that we search for better or more task specific means, to re-solve the problem. Water works well to douse fire, but not so well, when the fire is electrically or chemically based. In these cases we find that our preferred solution comes up short. Here our ancestors came up with other solutions for electrical and chemical fires. So other solutions are used when we come across fires of these types.

Often in the search for a viable solution to a problem different people will come up with different solutions. Each thinking his solution the best, (and most profitable if his patented solution wins out). Due to an effect of Olsen’s, logic of communal action, in those that have a ‘dog in the race’ cannot be relied on to render unbiased opinions. This results in a myriad of solutions implemented haphazardly, is often dangerous, is usually inefficient to implement and difficult to maintain. In this case it is more effective for government to standardize a solution or as Confucius said it, “rectify terms.”

When government ‘rectify’s terms’ it creates a standard, a standard that can be implemented by many different businesses and creates the conditions for perfect competition. Once this happens economies move. In the US the standard for HDTV was hard fought with many actors, effecting the outcome, who had a ‘dog in the race’. They held up the process for years but when the standard was set, the price, availability, and quality of the new HDTV’s became much better for the consumer. Because setting a standard begot “perfect competition.”

A non governmental example is the computer revolution powered by the widespread acceptance of Microsoft Dos then later Windows. The adoption of theses platforms as the standard, allowed those that programmed to learn one operating system, that they could write software for making the computer more and more usable, while the standardization also allowed computer manufacturers to lower the cost, raise the quality and achieve impressive market penetration. Imagine if no standard was ever set. Computers would be exponentially more expensive, there would be limited software available and it would be platform dependant, and quality would be hit or miss.

However governments around the world don’t set standards they usually dictate policy. Government in the US regulates every aspect of the insurance industry but sets few standards. Paperwork for example. If government set a standard set of paperwork for every health insurance company in the nation, imagine the cost reduction for doctors, insurance companies and patients, not to mention the errors that would be avoided by the standardization. Instead of dictating what the very provisions of health policies within a State the nationalization of a paperwork standard would drive down costs and improve quality, as standardization almost always does. There are many other examples of where governments could set standards that would improve the economy, lower costs, increase quality and make life easier for people.

The problem is that standardization can go wildly off the rails if it is done with an eye to politics. Like in South American oligarchal capitalism, where government serves the needs of a specific faction of the population, in this case a small cadre of families, that own everything. In some instances the average person has no ability to own land only the elite. The communist countries are even worse as they serve the needs and wants of a single man instead of an aristocracy.

With the caveat of political interference always threatening every action government takes, standardization is an important role of government. Standardization works even better when it crosses political boundaries. Our earlier example of the computer revolution crosses political boundaries but the example of HDTV does not. If the HDTV example were extended across governments then the standard would have even more effect.

Yup, it’s easier to create something if there is a standard to work with; but if you have to make it all up as you go, it will be harder, take longer and won’t come out as well…

Violence and Society

Monday, January 17th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that anyone, who honestly claims that the violence we see in our societies are an aberration, is profoundly ignorant of human history. Look at the virtual violence we surround ourselves with, and the omnipresent media hyping the decadent lifestyle, while the news glorifies, to the extreme, the psychopath. The next psychopath to be crassly milked for ratings as much as the first.

Now, if I made little figurines of the twin towers with a plane imbedded in it, and sold them, crassly for profit, that would make me an ass. To profit from a tragedy are the actions of an ass. Like the unbiased media or politicians fundraising from one. Not only profiteering from the tragedy but taking illegitimate political pot shots at a political faction. While, by exaggerating the crime, they are crying out to other damaged people who, ignorantly, want to live in the pages of history… They too can have life unending even if as a villain.

History is rife with violence. The Romans entertained themselves with virtual war in the arena. People the world over entertain themselves with cock fighting, dog fighting and every form of fist fighting there is. Not only us but every society in the history of Mankind. We were born of violence and it is in our nature.

It is our upbringing, that allows us to overcome our violent nature and grow us, morally, into civilized people. Hsun Ching said that the congenital nature of Man is evil, while Mencius said the congenital nature of Man is good. They were both correct… and they were both wrong.

Mencius argued that no person would not fret at seeing a child fall into a well… While this is for the most part true, there are those that would derive pleasure at the sight. Sick and twisted sociopaths that lack empathy. Hsun Ching claimed that we are all born needy and self indulgent. As we grow up our selfish nature is tempered by our parents teachings and we go from childish barbarians to civilized humans.

It can be argued, Alexander the great would not have defeated so much of the known world, had he not been schooled by Aristotle himself. In Plutarch, Alexander is quoted, as quoting Aristotle. So Alexander’s evil, selfish, (barbaric) nature was not so much civilized, by Aristotle, but empowered. Despite the sage teachings, in this case, it can be said that Alexander was more a product of his environment, than his teacher. Yet after his death and the disillusion of his empire, Alexander’s life amounted to the moving of a few lines on ancient maps, the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the destruction of farms, homes, cities and fortunes.

We are all a product of our environments… and our schooling. The most moral people need not be from the most moral backgrounds but they must have some spark of morality within. Some animals can be tamed, while others always remain a mortal threat, no matter the love showered on them; some people can be civilized while others remain a mortal threat. (Due to their barbaric upbringing ala Alexander). Those that are “untamable” end up as psychopaths and sociopaths causing innocent people pain and suffering.

Wile all violence is a tragedy, beyond all scope of comprehension, for the families of direct victims, the tragedy is no greater than for the families of soldiers, police, or any other innocent victim, randomly killed. Their loss is suffered no less, than when a member of the Elite, has been killed or wounded. I subscribe to the notion that all human life has equal value, only the lives of family and friends supersede. (It is impossible to hold the life of a stranger as dear as the life of someone loved… It is outside our nature).

So if the media would act maturely, the government would react with perspective, society would grieve respectfully and political factions would allow a tragedy to go to waste, so to speak, our society would be less violent and far less prone to this kind of tragedy. Unfortunately, our media is what it is, our government acts as it acts and society is still mired in the archaic notion, that the lives of the Elite are far more valuable, than the lives of the plebian masses.

One of Two Positions

Thursday, January 13th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are really only two positions, when you boil the arguments down, between communists, progressives, socialists and their nemesis the classical liberal or neo conservative. The winnowed down argument is simply this; Either we people need a benevolent overlord to keep us protected and safe from ourselves or we are capable of making our own decisions and have little need of a “benevolent” overlord.

This is the contention that Weimar Germany argued against the national socialists. The National socialists position was that the nature of democracy is such that people will always politic for their self interest against the interests of the whole. This inevitably leads to a collapse of the economy as they had just experienced. The National socialists argued, they would be a benevolent overlord, and protect the interests of the whole. Sometimes at the cost to a faction but always to the advantage of the whole.

The same or similar arguments have been used historically to trick people out of their liberty. When Darius discovered that the Magi had fooled the Persians there was a lively debate as to the future government of the Persian empire. Darius argued that since a monarchy had served the Persian people so well in expanding their empire it should be maintained. He then proposed a contest to determine the new king, cheated, and became king. Then lost most of an army attacking the Scythians.

In these two instances, the future tyrant argued, effectively, that the people needed a benevolent overlord, to keep them safe. The people went along and were rewarded with bloodshed and death. Literally, rivers of blood, have flowed from those decisions. In my world view, that is a negative outcome, and per William James philosophy of pragmatism, and the idea should be discarded. But for some reason there are still people who take this stand.

Communists, progressives and socialists agree, that people need a benevolent overlord, to protect and keep us safe… from ourselves. That is a basic premise of their philosophies. To deny it, shows a great miscomprehension of the philosophy, in which you hold, else the arguer is using spurious logic.

Of course if rivers of blood, destroyed cities and ethnic cleansing, are an acceptable price to pay, to get rid of the dominant paradigm, there is another factor you should take into account. That is, the people in charge before the revolution are often the same after the revolution. Sometimes names change, but the Elite play revolving chairs, but instead of taking away a chair two are added. Only the most virtuous are culled in a revolution the most corrupt are safe.

Some people, who are communists, progressives and socialists, have the opinion that the people of the world, in the aggregate, have it too good. Especially in the US. Our high standard of living should be lowered. The pitiful standard of living in all of the nations controlled by communists, progressives and socialists, and others with the same basic philosophies, show, in living color, how the Elite want everyone to live… Well everyone except them…

For example; The standard of living in Venezuela is about to crash. The crash is inevitable, being staved off awhile by the continued seizing of private property. Property that the dictator squanders, going out to eat with the money. The infrastructure in Venezuela is decrepit from the misapplication of the vast amount of money, the government had, at it’s disposal. Instead of being sent to improve the oil infrastructure, roads, electric grid, telephone/internet grid water, sewer and gas. Which are valid things government can invest in… Buying the loyalty of the people was the use of the funds at Hugo’s hand. Buying loyalty works well in the short term but we’ll see how long lived it is when this crash plays out. I’m betting Hugo will start a war to get out of it for awhile longer…

What about the alternative? Letting people be self sufficient, free of coercion from the State, free in person, property and ideas… Basically the ideals of the enlightenment. Well, the lot of Man was lifted from lower than dogs live today, much lower, to heated homes, running-heated water, cars, lights, we have come from a state of perpetual want to a state of perpetual surplus. Pragmatically and empirically we can see, which argument, benevolent tyranny or liberty, is the closer representation of supreme truth… Yet the debate rages on…

Anti Capitalist Elite and Rhetoric

Monday, January 10th, 2011

Dear Friends

It seems to me, the most detested self evident right, of all Elite, is freedom of speech. No other right is as loathed as the public’s ability, in some nations, to freely speak negatively of their rulers. The Elite want to work in darkness… like mold. The light of public discourse is withering to them, so they seek at every turn, to undermine the right to free speech.

The Elite love Human Rights that require the Elite to extract property, at the point of a gun, from others in society. These, non self evident rights, empower the Elite to do what they want to do anyway… Tax and spend. Think of it this way. If your neighbor had the legal right, to spend an unlimited amount of money in your name, only subject to his or her whim, and can spend the money freely on themselves, how deeply in debt would they put you, how deeply in debt would you put them? How much more egregious, would you or they be, if the spending was done in the dark?

To get at free speech however, the Elite will cross any bridge, and then turn and burn it. Take the tragic shooting of the Congress woman in Arizona. The Anti capitalist faction of the Elite are trying to use this episode for political gain. Crass and despicable as it may be, they seek to use this tragedy, to narrow political discourse into channels they find more appealing. Decrying the vitriol of those that seek liberty while ignoring the vitriol of those that seek tyranny.

No way that could be a bad thing. Quieting the discourse of those that seek to limit the power of government, and allowing the most hateful vitriol to go unchallenged, must be a good thing? Have people forgotten the names the anti capitalists, including Obama himself, called George W. Bush? The books written and published how to kill Bush, the constant drum beat of hateful rhetoric against the man? I ask you, is this acceptable political discourse… It is if it comes from anti capitalists.

Yet they use the lone gunmen to paint whole swaths of society. Anyone who disagrees with the future tyrant, is disturbing the order of society, by inciting violence. But when the Communist calls for violent revolution in front of a crowd of believers he is given a place in the Executive Branch. Van Jones rhetoric must not be dangerous, but if it is pointed out that the new health care law will necessarily give rise to panels of people who will have the power of life and death, people will rise up and bomb abortion clinics. The anti capitalist, intentionally twists cause and effect, to undermine the ability of us to speak freely among ourselves.

Yet the anti capitalist faction of the American Elite claimed that when Major Malik Nadal Hasan opened up and started shooting yelling “Abu Akbar” it was the act of a lone gunman. Seriously, if the nut job who shot Arizona Congresswoman Giffords, had announced he was doing it for some right wing organization, would it still get as soft pedaled as the clearly anti American Fart Hood shooting was by the anti capitalist Elite? Yet the President has no problem with the rhetoric coming from violent Jihad originations? Why is that?

The other self evident right, the anti capitalist Elite hate, is the absolute right of self defense. The Right of self defense gives rise to the American Constitutional Right to keeps and Bear Arms. The Elite see this as a threat to the State’s absolute monopoly on violence. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is another right that will be attacked by the anti capitalist Elite in the coming days. The anti capitalist Elite want people to be dependant. The Right to self defense makes people independent. Independent people have little need of “help” from government, ergo they generate little need for the Elite to tax and spend, their favorite activity.

So we can clearly see, that the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms interferes with the anti capitalist Elite’s favorite activities… pillaging the money and property and raping the rights of their serfs. To answer a question I posed earlier, there is no level of debt that another will not put you or I in, if he or she can with no consequence. I am no better than your neighbor, or you, so why do people think, those who have proven themselves to be selfish, greedy and despicable, in every way… to be more virtuous than you or I?

Because people who lie constantly say they are?

Running a Government is a Team Effort

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a goalie in any Soccer game, would not be considered to have done a good job, even having scored 2 points in a game, if he was never at the net, instead, doing the job of a forward. Or the case of a forward who never crossed the center line always protecting the net. In these cases you could say that even though the men may have expertise in playing, their not being in position makes their skill superfluous. If a forward never moves forward goals will not be scored and if a goalie never guards the net even passing shots will get points. Because they have been given an extremely important task.

Now take the case of the US Congress, they have one thing that is an imperative, pass a budget every year. That is the most important reason they convene. To pass a budget, it need not be balanced, it need not be sane, but it must be passed. Passing a budget is kind of like guarding a net. It keeps the US government’s spending, ahem, under control. Yet in 2010 the Congress didn’t pass a budget for 2011.

Why didn’t they get this most important job done? Even with both houses of Congress controlled by one party? Because they had too much to do that was more important. What is more important to a goalie than guarding the net you may ask? Getting goals of course! They scored at least two against the American people. The one, health care, and the other, banking regulation, the latter of which will come back to bite the US economy in due time.

But they are called the most productive Congress in recent memory. Largely because of the two points they scored on you and I. They seized control of a third of the US economy, put it under direct control of the US government, making one third of the US economy, a planned economy. Remember the planned economy? It was going to bury us. Under toxic waste I suppose, that is the biggest legacy, of the Eastern Bloc and USSR’s economic programs.

Now take the case of a right guard who acts the goalie / forward. Always sliding in knocking the goalie away from the net, or running ahead, always out of position. He wouldn’t be able to do his job well if he was never at the right place. This is much like the US Judicial system. It thinks it is the goalie, the left and right guards, the center and every other player on the field. The US judicial system believes itself, all knowing and all seeing, the omnipotent benevolent power behind the curtain. (And they are… minus the all knowing and benevolent parts).

Why not? Lawyers write all law, lawyers have a plurality of seats in the US Congress, the President is a lawyer and the Judicial branch is barred to all non lawyers. So I ask you, what faction of the American people, have the most power to shape society? Now, people being people, do you suppose they have no hand in the litigious society that we live in? It is definitely in the best interests of lawyers to keep people at each others throats, to move all decisions into the courts, where lawyers get financially rewarded for litigating the solutions.

So we have a judiciary that thinks itself capable of running the entire, of our government, our society and make our personal decisions too. That seems like a right guard that wants to play every position to me… So with the Judicial Branch of the government doing everything, it cannot do a good job at what it is supposed to do, protect the Constitution. Not milk it for all the wealth and power they can.

The Executive Branch is more like the center. It controls the offense. Pushing the political hot potatoes into the opponent’s side, maintaining his position until the puck shoots back to him, so he can regain the initiative. Our President was more concerned with shackling the American people, with manacles forged of health care; than passing a budget, fighting the war or getting and holding the International initiative. Did Obama get, or give up the initiative, when he reneged on the deal with Poland for a missile shield?

With a team like this playing “for” us, how can we…

The Threat of Regulation

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Dear Friends,

Happy New Year!

It seems to me that if the Obama administration goes through with it’s threat, to go around Congress by enacting reams of regulation, it will be an excellent example for the rest of the World to watch, watch as the US economy crashes and burns.

I have gone on and on about the pernicious nature of regulation in these blogs. Regulation is one of the biggest impediments to a good natural rate of unemployment in an economy. Regulation, by it’s very nature, raises the natural level of unemployment. Economists seem to agree, although economists are like cats, loners and they love to fight each other., that the natural rate of unemployment in the US has reset to around 7%.

Regulation is bad enough, but when it is used to bypass the normal flow of law, it carves divergent channels. Like water will carve a new channel when it is forced out of it’s banks, so too will a means of controlling the public, that is easier for the Elite to use, once discovered, will be used with increasing frequency. A new path to power will have been carved.

When an idea that should be discussed in the marketplace of ideas, is imposed by a small faction instead, it leads to societal convulsions. Look at the historical example of abortion in the US. The Constitutional argument granting the unlimited right was fabricated from whole cloth. Since then the public reaction has grown more negative every year. The blood on the hands of those “Justices” is chilling… I pray for their souls.

In making the pronouncement itself, the administration is announcing it’s repugnance for the Constitutional means of enacting law. When A person breaks the law, it is not because they love the law, it is because they detest the law. Thinking that law an impediment to their best interests they simply ignore that law, until caught and punished, for the violation of the government’s morality. When a private person does it is bad for society, this how much worse the societal damage when the Elite do this.

Reams of regulation also proclaims that the rite role of government is to force societal change. A small cadre of Elite, that have no meaningful interactions with the public at large, (except for the occasional hot dog on the campaign trail), impose their self righteous view of “societal justice“ on us masses of ignoramuses. They believe we the public are stupid, you and I, they believe we don’t actually know what is, in fact, in our best interests, and so it is their imperative to force us to bend to their will.

Lets look at empirical examples of what type of regulation the administration has in store for us…. The administration has regulated to date; Off shore drilling, (wiping from the map thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars of economic growth from future GDP), the banking and investment industry, (lets see how consumer friendly the regulation turns out to be), the health care industry, (fully a third of the US economy will come under direct or nearly direct government oversight and regulation), the free flow of information on the internet, (through net neutrality) the list goes on and on…

All these things will combine to dramatically raise unemployment and drive down economic growth if they actually happen, (most already have). The example is obvious, a road to ruin will be illuminated for the rest of the world to see. A road that, once illuminated, will be eschewed by other nations, for the road to prosperity, the market system encumbered by as little regulation as is possible. Regulation that is strictly enforced even whet it is broken by the Elite themselves.

That, my friends, is the path to prosperity, smart, and minimal regulation on industry. Limiting government influence on the Market would result in more efficient and productive markets. With far less warping of those markets… to insure the profit of corrupt officials.

Not that corrupt officials have a negative effect on an economy… Nor that unlimited power creates corrupt officials…