Archive for November, 2011

Republican Primary Candidates… My Take.

Monday, November 28th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the republican primary candidates all have their personal strengths and weakness. In that, they are as human, as you and I. They hold vastly different places on the political spectrum, yet are all far less statist than their potential adversary in the general election… Obama.

Mitt Romney is a progressive pure and simple. He was against true liberalism before he was for it. He used to be for, gun control, abortion, amnesty for illegal’s and most of all government health care… Nazi healthcare. This is his baggage. Romney is vehemently opposed to all these things… now. But to the much jaded American “conservative” he looks pretty much like the Elite’s choice.

Newt Gingrich is another progressive of a different stripe than Mitt. Gingrich, while being quite progressive in many of his stances, hasn’t changed them as much. With Gingrich what you see is what you get. He is a smart guy who lives the hedonistic lifestyle that our culture portrays as the highest and best. He has delivered on true liberal (neo conservative) values however. In his contract with America he promised and then delivered on many true liberal values. Holding Congress to many of the laws they had been exempt from in the past, spending cuts through welfare reform and he was in fact the real driver to the US budget surplus of the time. Much because of his controversial statements and lifestyle.

Rick Perry is so similar to Mitt Romney it is eerie. Except for his religion which Rick Perry wears on his sleeve. Not that religion is a bad thing, I believe it shows a candidate holds him or herself to a higher power, and also shows some level of humility. He does have some actually long standing conservative values like abortion. But Rick Perry also has a great deal of progressive baggage. The US true liberal electorate are wary of progressives. We have been tricked too many times before. Perry sounds to us like Bush.

Herman Cain has the all American life story. He embodies what Veblen claimed, was the reason the American people of his time were insensitive to class warfare, because there was a pervasive feeling, that at any time anyone, could become rich. If only he or she had the right idea and the guts to pull it off. Herman Cain did and did. He has proven himself smart and capable but politically inept. The unbiased media put out a hit on him and they pulled it off. He and the candidates that follow don’t meet the Elite’s view of who a real candidate should be. Likening back to the old arguments between the Patricians and the Plebeians about who could and could not be a Consul.

Ron Paul has some good ideas about the economy. I get the feeling he actually means them as well which is a big gold star in my book. He understands what the outcome of our economic policies will be if we stay on the same road. It is well worn, from Weimar to Argentina, it looks like the best road… until the end. The swamp at the end sucks everything down. But the Elite are willfully ignorant that the same road always leads to the same place. Ron Paul, however, is extremely dangerous in his foreign policy. No matter how well our economy is doing, a well placed EMP from a nuclear armed suicidally apocalyptic Iranian regime, would kill 70% of the US population in 6 months and 50-70% of the populations in Africa and the Middle East in a year… due to starvation. Such an extremely dangerous attitude in foreign policy is absolutely unacceptable.

Michele Bachman has it exactly right on economic policies. The first order of business, to get the American economy back to being the engine of the World’s economy, is to rescind Obama care. She is exactly right in her wanting to reform Dodd Frank, into something that addresses the actual problems instead of exacerbating them, as does Dodd Frank. Move the power from giant institutions, that are too big to fail, to smaller more distributed banks that can more efficiently compete. Unless the power of regulation is used to stifle competition as does Dodd Frank. Bachman is accurate in her assessment of the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. She understands the threats our way of life are under and she has guts enough to get us out. But she is a woman and perhaps the American electorate are not ready for a woman to be president.

They are all smart and dedicated. Some to the future of the country and some to themselves and their own power. As are all politicians. It is when they direct their drive for power, into the improvement of Mankind that it is good, and when they use it for their own personal enrichment, at cost to humanity… it is bad. We again clearly see the outcome of demand side statist solutions the last few years with Obama. We worry about more of the same in Romney, Gingrich and Perry. Cain has been politically tainted by the unbiased media and will need some powerful cleaning up. The exculpatory truth will probably come out in a few months but the hit will have worked. Ron Paul has his mortally dangerous foreign policy as his chief baggage and Michele Bachman is a girl.

There is not one among them, however, who wouldn’t be one thousand times the President of Obama.

Sincerely,

John

Language and Hypocrasy

Thursday, November 24th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that our language is under attack for political purposes. The definition of words is the main focus but actions are being redefined too. “Liberal” publications even call attention to the fact that if you want to change people’s opinion about a subject rename it. There are people who put absolutely no limit on the scope of their actions when it comes to politics. However, there is real danger in unfreezing language… It might refreeze at a point no one imagined. Changing fundamental things in ways that no one could have predicted. With possible dire outcomes. Moreover once a tactic is used in the political arena it becomes fair for any political actor. As we saw when republicans used a tactic thought up by democrats on the democrats and the democrat reaction was as hypocritical as can be. Our mutual liberty and prosperity are threatened by these actions.

This is altogether logical. The people who are changing language, to suit their wants, work in an egoistic way. They have no arguments that have not been thoroughly debunked. The arguments of Marcuse and Tonnies, not only being absolutely hypocritical (in the way they lived their lives), they have all been uniformly proven false. There is no intellectual argument that can be made, to empower the State to enforce political fairness, that has not been made. They are all equally egoistic and spurious. Therefore those that seek this political outcome must use unethical means to their ends. Logic is their enemy; Emotion is their friend.

Hypocrisy is laughed at by the unbiased media and the political Elite. It must be, for the hypocrisy of the unbiased media and the Elite, would otherwise be shown in stark detail. The most glaring example, (no matter where you fall on the overall issue), is abortion. Nothing could be more hypocritical than to urge the murder of an innocent unborn child, in a safe clinical atmosphere, while protesting to keep a cop killer alive. What about… supporting late term abortion and eschewing fur? The list is endless in the ways that legalized abortion is hypocrisy writ large.

The “liberals” have been seeking to normalize deviancy, for generations, by renaming it. They call a vitriolic attack on Roman Catholicism “art” but they would never broach such an attack on Islam, Buddhism or any other religion. The curious thing is, when communists get power, the first thing they outlaw is pornography, homosexuality and religion. The Nazis, Lenin, Mao, Fidel, et al. the list is complete. The communist government controls the individual to the nth degree. Even to the point of selecting his or her recreational activities. None of which are hedonistic. (Read Shang Yang). Just a bit hypocritical eh?

Even the term Liberal has been redefined to mean illiberal. Look at the positions of those calling themselves “liberal” today. They are uniformly anti capitalist, they call for the elimination of Israel, they demand thought laws, they seek control over the most mundane choices in our lives, they loathe Christianity, they always fall on the side of a bigger more powerful State and the modern “liberal” hates free speech unless it is his speech. Lets face it, they are the same people who brought us the French Revolution, communist revolutions and all their excesses. Their minds are as closed as a factory in Chicago.

Some of the terms being redefined are; To be racist is to be pro-capitalist, because no matter what a pro-capitalist says, it is called racist. While blatant anti Semitism is not denounced as racist – those that do denounce it are called racists. To be progressive means wanting to return to the Feudal System. In the end, that is what communism, and socialism, but, forms of feudalism. Where the goods of society are distributed by political power. Ala aristocracy, oligarchs run the show and distribute the goods… not the “unfair” market.

Look at the way the democrats reacted to the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice. The democrats had been using far more vitriolic attack organizations on republicans, for at least two election cycles before that, but when the republicans finally caught on, the democrats were horrified. The Elite and the unbiased media all denounced the tactic. The unbiased media were silent, about the fact, it was democrats that invented the tactic in the first place, and have several still in existence, Move on dot org is just one… Not the least hypocritical.

While it is clear that, people are changing language for political purposes, what remains unclear is how. Language is a factor of culture not politics. But today we see language not only becoming politicized but criminalized. So indeed politicians have seized the power to effect language but the cultural Elite still have far more power to effect language. Hollywood and other cultural purveyors including the unbiased media have great authority in this regard. As Maxwell Smart used to say, “Too bad he used his power for evilness instead of goodness.“

Too bad indeed…

Whack A Mole

Monday, November 21st, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the unbiased media are playing “Whack a Mole” on the republican candidates for president. Remember that old carnival game? There was a board with four by four rank holes. A plastic mole head would randomly pop up and you had to hit it with a mallet. Then it would go back down and another would pop up somewhere else. While it is an amusing analogy it has profound implications for our material welfare and the welfare of our children.

We have seen quite a few republican candidates rise to the top only to be whacked down by the unbiased media. They put wall to wall coverage of some flaw or fault of the “flavor of the week” candidate. They air unsubstantiated allegations as true, ask questions of people who’s only knowledge is hearsay and post it all as fact. Next year the truth will come out but the whack a mole will have worked the election will be over.

The only republican who seems immune to this is Mitt Romney. He gets a pass from the unbiased media. They target any potential threat to Romney’s candidacy. Because they know Romney can’t attack Obama on his weakest point… Health care. That is why the unbiased media want Romney so bad. A Romney candidacy would, to some extent, suppress the neo conservative (true liberal) vote.

The level and vitriol of the attacks goes up with the level of free market thinking of the candidate. Michael Bachman is probably the most conservative, with the possibility that Santorum is as conservative, and the level of vitriol poured out against her was horrific. Even Fox News called her a kook to her face. Imagine if an unbiased news reporter called Obama a kook anywhere let alone to his face! That reporter and his or her network would be bankrupt in a month.

The unbiased media would be wise to heed the advise of Lycurgus, and not to wage war too much against the same adversary, else that adversary will learn to wage war himself. In the case of the unbiased media we have a core that attacks anyone who is really a free market thinker (ala Hayek). We saw with Ronald Regan, that he could effectively take on the unbiased media’s attacks, so much so, the unbiased media called him the “Teflon President.” Tacitly admitting they had thrown more mud at him than at any other president previously but none of it had stuck.

When a republican points out a democrat’s foible, like blatantly breaking campaign finance laws, the unbiased media say everyone does it, and attacks the republican as engaging in the “politics of personal destruction.” Then the unbiased media destroy that republican personally. Things that are universally overlooked by the unbiased media when a democrat does them are severely attacked when a republican does them. Take for example, the way the unbiased media’s attack on Cain for taking a moment to form a cogent thought in a newspaper interview, to Obama’s not knowing how many States are in the United States.

Isn’t that exactly what the whack a mole mallet is; the politics of personal destruction? Done by people calling themselves unbiased it has had real bite. I am thinking, that it will be a factor in my level of support for a republican candidate, the level of vitriol and bile the unbiased media pour on them. This will unerringly show who they despise and who is, most probably, the best person to turn our Titanic away from the ice burgs in our path.

By eschewing Lycurgus’ advice the unbiased media have thickened the skin of the neo conservative voter. Empirically speaking, the attacks the unbiased media poured out on Herman Cain, were far less effective than they have on previous candidates. Like a body, slowly getting immune to snake venom, the American electorate are reacting less and less to the unbiased media’s attacks on neo conservative candidates.

Thank God for the new media. Where some of the diabolical attacks can be shown to be baseless. Like the papers falsified by CBS about Bush’s Military service. As the electorate become more and more aware of the unbiased media’s agenda we will become increasingly incredulous to them. The conundrum is, when there is a real problem with one of our candidates, wolf has been cried so many times, we will totally ignore when a real wolf comes into our ranks.

This Supply Side Recession

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that you cannot fix a supply side recession with demand side fixes. This recession and “recovery” has been characterized with huge upsets in the supply of money to the economy via the banking system, disruptions to the running of all the World’s car companies, and most of all, tsunami after tsunami of regulation washing over the banking systems and every other industry in the US. Getting it right is the most important thing the government can do right now. So many people are in need of a good job. Not only in the US but everywhere.

I explained the difference between demand side economics and supply side economics in a previous blog. It is important to understand the difference. Talking heads come on tv and spew demand side economic thinking as if it is the only game in town. Every time anyone brings up spending cuts the demand siders get red faced. They spout on about if government spending drops then demand will fall. But if, as they say, 70% of the economy is consumer spending, some of the 30% left must be corporate spending, so the economy has at most 20% liability. But we are talking about minute spending decreases not a 100% government shutdown forever. Lowering that 20% to 1-2% exposure for the economy.

The demand siders never stop. They claim demand is demand, but I put to you… Is all demand equal in economic outcome? Lets take $100.00. I could spend it on cocaine or I could buy a skill saw. Is the outcome of each purchase equal in outcome for the economy? No it is obviously not. The production of the skill saw required the coordination of literally hundreds perhaps thousands of industrial outputs. From the oil pipeline maker to the mining equipment manufacturing companies, they all had a hand in producing the skill saw. It doesn’t stop there. The skill saw is a means of production therefore it can be used to produce things that improve the lot on man in the aggregate and individually. The purchase of a skill saw has deep economic impact.

The cocaine however has far less positive economic impact. It went largely under taxed, it was produced with, (probably) with slave labor, the profits go to lowering the lot of Man and corrupting a society. It doesn’t stop there. The cocaine is a consumable and when used will almost certainly diminish the output of the person using it. So we can clearly see from this albeit drastic contrast that all demand is not equal to economic output.

But when there are real regulatory hurdles to starting a firm, especially incoming regulation, the cost of which to the new business cannot be effectively quantified, the leap is insurmountable. As the ability of the economy is eroded by the supply side cramps, and regulation, effectively stopping or even slowing the expansion of supply, then at best, the economy can muddle along. No amount of demand can start a supply if government has made it impossible. Until a tipping point is reached. At that point, if the profitability is so great it offsets the legal implications, then underground firms will open. As in the cocaine trade.

But that isn’t the demand that government spending creates is it? Government demand is specific and requires reams of paperwork. As a result the company that is best at filling out paperwork gets government contracts not the best company for the job. The incentive systems government always set up are always pernicious. They are the epitome of my saying, “The distribution of the goods of society by political favor instead of merit.” What ever money is taxed and spent this way performs as poorly for the economy as the demand for cocaine.

But some might argue that under the Obama administration the number of government workers making over $100,000.00 a year has more than doubled. That creates demand. I have to admit that it does create demand when government workers make double the wage of people in the private sector. The demand is not economic however it is sociologic. The demand is for government jobs not productive real jobs in the real economy that pay far less.

So, we are in a supply side recession, or at least a slowdown. The Elite have been throwing demand side fixes at the economy. Fixes like TARP I, TARP II, QEI, QEII, TWIST, and several stimulus packages, they have done nothing, but driven up inflation. Ronald Regan, repaired the supply side recession in his time with supply side fixes, and it worked in spades. Lets face reality here. Government spending does little for the economy but regulation hurts it a lot! Cut spending and cut regulation! If we want to get America back on the right track we need to follow things that have worked in the past not things that have failed. That is the way to a prosperous future.

What kind of future do you want for your kids… Perpetual joblessness and despair (ala Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama) or low unemployment and a bright future (ala Ronald Regan and Margret Thatcher)? Demand side vs. supply side it is that simple.

Energy and Alternatives; Straight Talk

Monday, November 14th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a dangerously large fraction of society is utterly ignorant of our energy situation. This ignorance leads to actions which are very counterproductive. These counterproductive actions make it all the harder to maintain our level of energy usage let alone ramp it up so the whole World can improve their standard of living. The truth is, if we don’t open up sufficient energy supply so the entire World can benefit, we will loose the benefit we have here in the West.

Part of this ignorance is, of what is and what is not, possible. People think we can just develop this or that technology and voila! We are off fossil fuels. Unfortunately this is not possible. There are alternatives which are more economical in certain situations but there is no more compact way to store energy than in hydrocarbon fuel. The more dense the fuel the more energy it stores. Gas having the least and wax having the most. (By volume).

There is no other way to store so much energy, safely, in such a small space than with hydrocarbon based energy. Once we accept this fact we can then move on to a productive line of reasoning. How can we produce hydro carbon based fuels such that the environmental impact is positive and the cost is sufficiently low so that all the World’s inhabitants can take advantage.

One way, not necessarily the best, is algal based oil production. Some strains of algae have a very large percentage of their mass as light oil. This oil can be used directly in diesel engines. The production of this algal oil is quickly becoming commercially viable. Producing base oil in this way, economically and commercially, regardless of location, would open up energy production to anyplace on the globe. All that would be needed, would be a commercially available algal digester, processing equipment and inputs. Inputs would be a source of carbon dioxide and biological waste.

The resulting oil could be placed directly into a diesel engine and used to make electricity, grind stone into aggregate, move a truck or whatever. The oil could also be further processed into a gasoline substitute. This technology, were it to come online, would revolutionize energy production and thereby energy usage the World over. This would raise the material standard of living of all the Worlds’ people. It would also substantially redistribute international power.

But alas it is not yet available. Solar and wind have very specific uses where they can be economical but they cannot compete with hydrocarbon based fuels for ease of portability, safety, and energy density. There are several measures available that can fill the gap and reduce the West’s dependence on Mideastern oil today.

One is coal to oil and the other is oil shale and oil sand production. The main opposition to these technologies is that they are high carbon sources of energy. The presupposition here is that anthropomorphic climate change is fueled by human carbon output. As I have said many times the climate change we are experiencing is a solar system wide phenomenon… As evidenced by Mars. As such the entire premise of the opposition’s argument against coal to oil or oil sands/shale production is invalid.

Ignorance of these fact leads well intended people to protest much needed oil pipelines and pass regulations that keep US shale oil, sand oil and coal to oil production off limits. Rhetoric like Nazi oil is routinely used against any attempt to build a coal to oil plant. Even when that plant was to be used to mitigate slag heaps left over from past coal production. Protecting the aquifer from contamination and reopening land for other uses other than to hold a pile of slag. Yet Single payer is Nazi healthcare…

The real problem, is the law of God, otherwise known as the laws of physics. These laws are incontrovertible. We have been using them to our benefit since our inception. But since we must bow to them, as we have always done, it is in our interests to use them as I have pointed out. In the future, algal based hydrocarbon production but in the meantime, coal to oil and shale/sands oil production. Standing in the way only empowers hateful people, who want to kill the good people in the World, and does far more environmental damage than the alternative. Helping this along raises the material standard of living of the World and protects us from loosing ours. There is no reason to keep people ignorant and thus threaten our very own standard of living.

Unless there is some other agenda such as political.

The Questions Facing Us.

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Dear Friends,

Is it just me or are the questions facing us getting more and more scary? We don’t live under the threat of immediate nuclear annihilation anymore but due to the ineptitude or complicity of our Elite we may again soon. It is the overreaching of our government under the last few administrations, that has been accelerated under Obama, that has me rattled the most. What the government seeks to do will inevitably result in a tyranny. Powers are being discussed that would make the founders scream in anger and our children ask us… why.

While it is unwarranted to monitor someone talking to a known terrorist in another country it is fine to monitor mom and sis talking about a personal pie recipe. The laws the US government are passing and trying to get through the Supreme Court turn logic on it‘s head. There is no level of government intrusion or monitoring that is unacceptable today. Unless it is of a foreign terrorist… they have rights.

Total control of all media at the flip of a switch to disseminate information in a national emergency has implications. This new “test” of the emergency broadcast network is curious. It will give the US government the ability to cut off all communication for as long as they want. There are legal limitations but not technical. This ability is unprecedented. Now the government will be able to shut off all US media at the flip of a switch if there is a real emergency or just one the Elite don’t want us to know about…

Phones and internet are the next target under the guise of national emergency notification. The government has announced that it wants to be able to seize control of all phone traffic and the internet too. This, coupled with total control of all media, (during a national emergency) would give any coup attempt, the opportunity to keep the people in the dark, until the collaborators were safely ensconced. Then they could turn on the radios and tvs again and announce the new order.

Random GPS monitoring of citizens cell phones at governments whim. This would be a huge undertaking even in a limited form. But the ability to monitor every one of us and have the government know where we go and what we do on a daily basis would yield up wonderful benefits. Government would be able to track known dissidents to their collaborators. Government would be able to track gatherings of people possibly engaging in counter revolutionary activities. It would cost a lot though. I wonder, with the pressing need to cut government spending how on Earth will government be able to monitor all of us? I guess it’s just a matter of priorities.

The US government is intent on keeping the flow of illegal immigrants at an all time high. A large population of underclass is always helpful to would be tyrants. They are perennially angry, often have communist sympathies and are ignorant by definition. A large angry underclass has always been the pawn of the socialist. They do the hard work and remain underclass even after the revolution. If they are lucky.

The health care law is nothing but government intrusion into the lives of it’s citizens. Nothing is more intrusive than our personal healthcare information. The law seeks to change our behavior in subtle and not so subtle ways. The law intrudes into every one of our lives and gives the government the right to even more. If the government is footing the bill, why can’t it have a date certain, that after it will not cover anything. Say the same age as social security starts? Of course some like the idea of healthcare being meted out by political merit. That slope is the glarest of ice.

Not to mention the unconstitutional aspects of Obama care. The Supreme Court will be testing that slope to see if it passes Constitutional muster. The mandatory buying of insurance is what is going before them. Forcing American citizens to buy a product as a requirement of citizenship else pay a fine, is as slippery a slope as you will find, but soon we may realize we are on it.

These are by no means all the slippery slopes our enlightened lawmakers are trying to get us on. The list is almost endless. But the founding Fathers warned us that this would happen. They knew the congenital nature of Man. They tried their hardest to give us a system that would protect us from the Elite for as long as possible. Seems now is the time for us to open our eyes and use it. Loosing our liberty because we are too lazy to do something about it is pathetic. But that is what the Elite hope we will do… Nothing.

Bourgeois Virtues Compared to Communal Virtues

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that whenever bourgeois virtues are compared to communal virtues bourgeois virtues win out every time. The Bourgeois virtues are vilified by the progressive, socialist and Marxist all the time but are never defined. We are told to hate the bourgeois values and embrace the communal value system. But the two are never identified for us. I will try to define both sets of values so we can compare. We must truly understand what they are and the difference so we can make an informed choice if a choice must be made.

What is known as the bourgeois virtues are simply those basic rules that we conduct ourselves by in society. Those rules are so basic to our psyche that we don’t ever question them. No matter if we follow the bourgeois value system of the communal value system. They make up basic programming. I think the best way to understand them, is to compare them, each in it’s own.

Firstly the bourgeois virtues. The bourgeois value system is what allows the individual to function within a market based society most effectively. Like a capacitor, a coil or an LC circuit, has a resonant frequency, a market based society has a resonant system of values. These values make up the bourgeois value system. The main values are listed here and explained.

-Reliability. Reliability in every action is a basic characteristic of the winning capitalist. The businessman who is reliable, in a multitude of facets of his or her interactions, is far more successful in business than someone who is unreliable. There is a severe penalty to be paid for the unreliable in a capitalist society.

-Courtesy. Courtesy is the lubricant that allows a market based society to function. Because in a market based society an individual must necessarily come into contact with others that are different, courtesy is of the utmost importance. Courtesy was a fundamental tenet of Confucianism’s Human Heartedness. The discourteous are severely punished in a capitalist society. The discourteous does poor at business, and finds him or herself looking for a new job, often.

-Willingness to take risks. The smart risk taker is handsomely rewarded in a market system. The risk taker who has a good idea and takes the plunge often crashes. But if the society is lasses faire enough more often they will succeed. The success lifting up other risk takers and second and third tries. In America the average millionaire has gone bankrupt three times. Lack of risk taking is not severely punished in a capitalist society however. Those that want the nine to five are generally rewarded with one as they constitute an critical part of the market both as labor and as consumer.

-Empathy. To do well in business, or in any area of life in a capitalist society, one must have at least some level of empathy for others. If a salesman has empathy he or she can better meet the needs of the customer and the customer can be better served. Empathy is rewarded in a capitalist society the lack is punished. Those that display a lack of empathy better have some other extreme virtue to make up for this extreme handicap.

These are but a few of the virtues that can be called bourgeois values. Communal values are those that resonate with a socialist society. The resonant set of values that give the individual the best outcome under a socialist system. Some of the communal values are.

-Amorality. To keep a socialist system going everyone must be willing to do what is necessary for the collective. Collective good being superior to the individual’s good. Those that are amoral are rewarded under a socialist system. The dissenters must be eliminated and those that are willing to do it enjoy special privileges. Those that are moral are punished in a socialist system. Morality leads to actions that are not necessarily materially selfish. In an utterly selfish society those that are not utterly selfish are often starved to death.

-Hostility to outsiders. In a community, members of the community or tribe, have special privileges. Outsiders are always a potential source of new ideas. Ideas that may threaten the absolute power that must be in the hands of a few for a planned economy to function. Any source of ideas that are not fully compatible with the commune are blasphemous and those expounding them are to be eliminated. Brutally if an example must be made.

-Rudeness. In a communal society those that are rude get more food than those that are courteous. So we can say that rudeness is rewarded in a communal society and courtesy is severely punished. In any socialist society, because of the incentives for production, food is necessarily scarce. (Unless an outside source is available). So, if only those at the front of the line get food… Where will you find the rude and where will you find the courteous? Look at the example of a lane closure on an interstate…

-Rent seeking. In a system that has the goods of society distributed by political favor those that seek political favor are rewarded. Those that work hard are punished. Those few in a communal society that have political power, wield as a tool of that power, the ability to bestow franchise. Those that seek franchise by political favor, then, have a better chance than someone who has worked hard for it.

We see that the two systems have clearly divergent value systems. When someone calls for and end to the bourgeois values system now you know what they are calling to end. When someone calls for community you know the value system they want to install. No matter where you stand, it is my view that everyone see the truth, and keep everything above the table. Let the people make an informed decision.

I have. I am an International Capitalist. I support the Bourgeois value system… Do you?

The Organic Nature of Capitalism

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the primary reason the market system works so well, is that a market based economy is organic in nature. In any ecological system there is a great diversity of inhabitants. The one thing they all have in common is fitness to survive. Evolution sometimes give an advantage and that organism makes the most of it. (Like an entrepreneur). Business work the exact same way. Under a lasses fair economic system, (lasses faire, but one that has, and enforces, standards), our material quality of life would be drastically improved.

Diversity in an ecosystem, is how a such a system, is able to maintain itself. In an ecosystem the many species all taking a niche, work together, one eating the other’s excrement, creating a circle for nutrients to travel. In an economic system there is a great number of different firms taking up various niches. The diversity of firms enables the flow of capital, services and goods in an economy to circle. As in the worker/business/saver/bank money circle. Capital flows through an economic system just as nutrients flow through an ecosystem.

In any ecosystem the fitness to survive is the utmost incentive. Those who are unfit are quickly done away with. Ecosystems have no heart and only seek efficiency. Economies that are run lasses faire are similar. If businesses are allowed to start easily and end easily then there will be a great deal of diversity in firms. This diversity will quickly cull any flawed business plans from the economy. Flaws such as stupid capitalism would be shown in stark detail.

Evolution can give this or that species an advantage over their neighbors. They have some advantage and they take advantage. In the short term the ecosystem is unbalanced. But in the long term even the most invasive species is tamed to a greater or lesser extent and the ecosystem is improved by it. Like when an entrepreneur implements a new idea. The idea gives their business an advantage and they take advantage. They grow their businesses until the economy comes up with a way of balancing. Another firm will open competing with them or another product that renders the old one outdated comes on the market. Creative destruction in action.

In the case of a country’s economy most of the diversity is small and medium businesses. They fill most of the economic niches. The larger the diversity of small and medium sized businesses the greater the resiliency of a country’s economy. Like a pond that has a fully filled out ecosystem can weather a drought, better than a mono culture pond can, an economy that has a fully filled out private sector can better withstand an economic downturn. Perhaps more importantly a natural pond and an economy with a large diversity in firms can bounce back far faster when conditions improve.

Oligarchal economic system are like mono culture ponds. Any introduction of a new virus will wipe out the mono culture leaving the pond dead. This can and has happened to many economies over the years. It has only been the countries that have allowed their economies the ability to evolve to meet the new needs of society that have succeeded. Governments that seek to protect local firms always harm small and medium businesses. Regulation to protect the golden haired firms, necessarily makes it hard to compete with them, or even start a business.

Socialist or planned economic systems consider a country’s economy as a fish tank. But, no matter how well a fish tank is kept, it must be cleaned sometime. Moreover, unless there is an outside source of food, a fish tank will die. It cannot sustain itself. There are some species that can manage to survive in such conditions but surviving is not thriving. Take those gold fish from the filthy tank and put them in an open pond and watch them thrive. Socialist economies must control every aspect of our lives, to hold down the necessary cleanings and they must have a source of outside funds, else they quickly fall into famine. Under socialism people don’t thrive and only few survive.

The analogy goes far beyond this. I have simply run out of space in this blog format. Economic systems mimic organic systems so closely it is spooky. Similarities are everywhere… if you only look. From micro economics to macro economic cycles, economic systems act and react, just as ecosystems. Consider the Mom and Pop Store as a micro organism, and GM as a T Rex, with every other business filling a different niche in between. Consider the way a business works, with inputs and outputs, cash flow and outlay, to any biological organism’s metabolic processes… The conclusion is; that market systems are organic in nature.

So, the only question remains, where would you rather live? An open pond, a mono culture pond or a fish tank? Others are choosing for you so you better choose fast.