Posts Tagged ‘politicians’

Romantic Anti Capitalists

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the integration of African Americans into White society was as much a factor of capitalism as it was political.

Take the example of Jacky Robinson into the major leagues. What today seems obvious is not so obvious before it has been done successfully. We look back and think that it is absurd to exclude people from an activity due to the color of their skin. But, in the day, people were afraid of public opinion. They didn’t have a good read on whether or not it would be tolerated.

That is the role of the entrepreneur… to see an opportunity and seize on it. If you reduce baseball to it’s capitalist roots you see that each firm vies to have the “winning team.” the more winning your team the more profit there is in owning it. With this as the incentive it is in the best interests of the owners to put the very best players on their teams… that are available.

The entrepreneur notices that the available players are not necessarily the best players alive. So in his evil way the entrepreneur changes the parameters of what attributes are allowable. In this case erasing skin color as a disqualifying attribute. The entrepreneur who makes the leap first… successfully makes monopoly profits until the rest catch up. But in the interim the entrepreneur has bought up the best players at the beast prices. Monopolizing them to his evil ends.

Take the example of the wicked factory owner. He wants access to the cheapest labor he can get. Cheap in the smart capitalist terms… Lower labor cost per unit produced. Cheap cost is not necessarily cheap labor. Labor that is very inefficient is not cheap at any price… He sees that there is a segment that is excluded from his factory. If the exclusion were removed the available pool of labor would go up and his labor cost would at least stabilize if not go down. So the self interested entrepreneurial factory owner will seek to open up the formerly excluded people to his labor pool. It is in his self interest.

This is a fundamental attribute of capitalism and the market system. The very thing that make capitalism so hated by the romantic anti capitalists. Like Moser and Freyer worrying about the market system’s effect on community and the loss of ethnicity. To Marx and (in his own way) Schumpeter, on the imminent demise of capitalism… In the case of Schumpeter his book might have saved us all decades of stagnation at the hands of the progressives… One uniting attribute of all the anti capitalists is that they have a fixation on groups.

They love to group people and think about them in groups and as members of groups. Like meteorologists use blocks of data to represent large volumes of air in their computer simulations. It makes the computing task much easier. But introduces a huge amount of discrepancy. That discrepancy is why the weather man claims it will rain and it actually is clear and sunny. People are people. We react as individuals. Our actions then aggregate into societal action. But to try to represent human beings as groups looses a huge amount of data. This is a case of arguing from the specific to the general.

Because capitalism has introduced the ability of the individual to follow a path according to his or her desires and propensities. Allowing people access to the means of human improvement. The very thing that the original conservatives like Burke wanted to protect. That genie or djinn is loosed from the bottle. It will wrought what it wrought. But it is loosed. The internet only exacerbates the situation for the anti capitalist.

As more and more people follow their own paths and free themselves from group attachment we will see an improvement in the reactions of people to those that are different. As we have said before the sofa salesman cares nothing for the color of the customer’s skin he only frets over the color of his money…

But this vanilla-ing of society infuriates the romantic anti capitalist. They look at people doing their own thing and never fail to find fault. The planet cannot sustain it! Is a modern cry. But it has echoes from the past as well. During the 1930’s the Elite were claiming the Depression was caused by the diminishing of the Earth’s natural resources. As we have seen, empirically, that was not the case then, nor is it the case now.

It is romantic, to be anti capitalist, but romance is blind, and it is often foolish.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Why Has the Stimulus Failed Us?

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that anything that quenches the natural dynamism in the market system, results in lower economic growth, to the point of recession if the anti stimulus is sufficient. I contend that is exactly what is holding back the US economy now.

As Schumpeter said, everyone hates the entrepreneur. His innovations result in the destruction of whole industries and ways of living. But that dynamism, the “creative destruction” is what continually builds up the economic standard of living of society. Nations unwittingly quench the dynamism that drives economic growth. With regulation aimed at stifling the negative externalities that result in free entrepreneurial enterprise.

Much must be controlled else the markets would seize up. There must be accountability when dealing with people’s money. Especially money someone has saved over many years to have for retirement. Such funds are the most precious that a banker, broker, etc…. will ever handle. Someone went without, to put those funds in the hands of a person, so the capital can be invested effectively. That capital should be invested in the means of production resulting in a short and long term capital gain for the saver. Anything that misappropriates the money of investors must not, under any circumstances, be tolerated.

But regulation too often benefit’s the people regulated at cost to potential competitors. Existing companies get deferrals to upgrade to the new regulation. New businesses don’t. This keeps entrepreneurs from competing with established firms. The established firms then grow larger, taking up more market share and monopolizing their business sector.

Japan is an example of this type of corporatist regulation and banking. We see that when The Japanese corporations were growing entrepreneurially the Japanese economy grew at a fast pace. But for the past few decades the corporatist economy has shown it’s weakness. Once the corporation grows too large it becomes inefficient. In part due to the ever burgeoning bureaucracy. In this way the lack of entrepreneurial competition slows economic growth.

Japan’s embrace of Keynesian economic theory… Japan’s corporatist economic system is the most effectively stimulated by Keynesian economics. Large corporations have the in house legal ability to navigate government bureaucracy. Entrepreneurial companies do not. Even though the Japanese model is best suited for Keynesian intrusion Japan has stagnated, despite huge amounts of government spending, for decades. To the point of turning Japan’s huge government surplus into huge government deficits. I have heard that Japan pours more concrete than the US. That is a lot of government spending… Having produced economic stagnation.

The US economic system is far less responsive to Keynesian style stimulus for exactly the reason Japan is better suited for it. The US model is more entrepreneurial based. Except for some highly regulated sectors the US economy in which corporations are encouraged to grow too big to fail the US model is more free wheeling. Entrepreneurs are heroes in America. (To most people except romantic anti capitalists). But entrepreneurs are far less able to tap into government stimulus.

Entrepreneurs have some specialty. They obsess over something the rest of us overlook. In doing so they come up with a new way of organizing business, manufacturing a product or process for the delivery of goods. They are not good at changing their focus on governmental minutia. Rules to keep fraudsters from bilking the system.

So that is why the Keynesian economic stimulus that the Obama administration has been implementing has not worked. The US economic model is far too entrepreneurial in it’s nature. That nature will have to be changed for Keynesian stimulus to have any effect. But as we see with the Japanese model even under nearly ideal conditions Keynesian economics are no panacea. They still lead to stagnation. So why keep ignoring the obvious.

Take the brakes off the entrepreneurs.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Good Intentions are the Road To…

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that In all matters it is best if government use incentives instead of regulation. Incentives work universally. Regulation is bypassed universally.

Take the new banking regulation. While I haven’t read the 2000+ page bill I am no less ignorant of it than most (If not all) the people who voted for it. It seeks to move power to the Fed to regulate certain actions. But it is no different than the SEC. Remember the SEC who’s employees were looking at porn while the banking system burned? I have heard (on Bloomberg radio) the SEC as the most captured unit of government.

Industry capture is always an omnipresent pernicious force. It undermines the people’s trust in fairness of the financial system lowering GDP growth. Regulators, consciously or subconsciously, start to believe that their job is protecting the companies or industry they oversee, (an example of normalizing deviance), not protecting the consumer. This capture is especially prevalent where companies have access to huge amounts of capital and legal resources. They over awe the people who are tasked with keeping them honest.

But if the incentives are set up thoughtfully… I heard an excellent idea the other day. Unfortunately I don’t remember who said it but it was on Bloomberg Radio. He said that if banks or institutions grow beyond a certain size the amount of capital reserves would have to grow at a faster pace. Thus reducing the incentive to grow out of proportion. Basically like a transmission in a car.

In a transmission the ratio between the engine speed and the drive shaft speed changes given the gear ratio. In his idea the capital needed to be tied up unproductively as M1 money would change as the capital size of the corporation changed. An incentive like this would make growing too big to fail too expensive. The amount of capital needed to grow would make it more productive to spin off a division to handle a new opportunity. Reducing the risk to society if the new (or old) company fails.

Today there is no personal risk to management if a company were to fail that was too big to fail. The government would certainly step in to rescue them. In fact that in itself is a pernicious incentive to grow to be too big to fail. Once your company is too big to fail it will have a tacit free safety net. The precedent has been set on numerous occasions.

Regulation is always full of pernicious incentives. They are inevitable when extremely complex transactions are regulated. No person or group is omniscient. There will always be pernicious incentives when activity is regulated. No matter the activity.

The wise lawmaker keeps the law simple and thinks it through. A few years ago there was a spike in falls from aerial lift vehicles in the USA. The spike lasted a few months and the companies that were involved addressed the situation. (People not wearing their fall protection devices or lanyards). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) stepped in.

They did millions of dollars of taxpayer funded research and decided that the answer was to shorten the length of the lanyard and increase the fine to companies that didn‘t comply. The fine was the same whether the wrong lanyard was worn or not at all. The incentive for the person using the aerial lift vehicle was not to use the new shorter lanyards because they are far more restrictive. So the incentives the new rules set up were pernicious. They undermined the solution to the actual problem. Which was, people not wearing their lanyards while operating aerial lift vehicles. The result was lower productivity from the employees, higher operating costs to implement the new rules, (buying the new equipment) and I bet not one more lanyard was connected than had been done after the companies involved had addressed the situation in house.

Results are irrelevant when government is involved. It is good intentions that counts. Regulation that produce the worsening of a situation requires more government intervention. It’s obvious. If the result of the new government intervention make things even worse, then it requires a cabinet post in the Executive branch…

Government’s ineptitude and outright corruption coupled with good intentions always result in more government. Regulation is simply the road to it…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Societal Structure

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government is one third of a structure that we live our lives in. (The other two being tradition and modernity). The form of government determines the real and potential standard of living of the people that live under it. Historically the more oppressive – the lower the potential. But no matter the form it has great influence on the structure.

That is one of the reasons I am so amazed by anarchists. They seek to destroy the structure. No matter it’s form. Never thinking for a moment, regardless how effectively they destroy the structure, that another will quickly rise to replace it. Most probably in the form of a tyranny (as a reaction to the chaos). Setting them back in their goal of total liberty.

The reason the structure will rise so rapidly is that, as Socrates said through Plato, we are social by our nature. It is our sociability that provide us the goods we need. In his day the division of labor was simple. There was a {warrior (and farming) division and a religious class}- Citizens, and a slave class. Slavery kept labor costs vary low. Very low labor cost meant little division of labor. That kept innovation low and prices for commodities high. But although there was a simple division of labor the benefit of society was an improved standard of living. Socrates and his fellows didn’t have the philosophical framework to understand that an economy is not a zero sum game. But they did recognize the value of our social natures. They didn’t realize that economies are dynamic. Like living organisms. They thrive when watered, aired and fed. They dry up and shrivel when they are not properly cared for. Economies rise and fall with innovation. To the ancient philosophers economies were static.

Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth Of Nations” was an innovation in the way people thought about markets and trade. Of course he didn’t produce his work in a vacuum. But he articulated his ideas well enough to start a new area of scientific enquiry.

This book, The Wealth of Nations, hints at an underlying law in human societal structure. One of the great energy sources of all human societal structure is our want to get ahead. (Greed). Every one wants better. When the governmental structure was such that it quashed this part of human nature. It was, and always will be, to protect the power of the Elite. The Elite always want a structure that ensures them their “rightful” power.

The irony of the ancient societal myth is never mentioned in anything I have read. That is, To be a citizen one must have means. But to want means is to have avarice. (And that) The labors of society rightfully belong to the Aristocracy. Anything they allow the peasants to keep is magnanimous (big in the soul). The producers of those goods had no right to the products of their labors. For them to want to keep their own products was greedy. But to want what one did not produce or help to produce was not.

Just like the rhetoric coming from the socialists, progressives and communists. The products of a person’s labor rightfully belong to the Elite. For those that labor to want a share is for producers to be greedy. If the State needs the funds, to buy votes for the ruling faction, it is the States right.

Communists, socialists and progressives want to bind society their leadership. They know, (if not explicitly), that to do that they must bring back the structure that was lost by embracing markets. Markets are natural levelers of men. As buyers you and I don’t care about the seller’s race, creed, ethnicity, tattoos, etc… all you care about is the price and the quality of a good or service. [ala Hume and Voltair] That is why the Statist Elite want to get off the market system. Markets have lowered sovereignty too low. (As far as they are concerned). Far be it… from wanting “Progress,” in truth they want an Retreat. They want to move humanity back to a time when the Elite were kings and the people were slaves. They long to move us back to that halcyon time.

The trick is to make the people believe that Elite are on their side. Just as Julius Caesar did to destroy the Republic and create the Empire. He took Roman societal structure back from republican rule to the arbitrary rule of tyrants. He made the people love him by giving out money, forcing the forgiving of debts and enacting some much needed reform. (No one is totally evil or totally good). In doing so he earned the absolute and blind following of the Roman people. He then used that following to make himself emperor. Fundamentally changing Roman societal structure. Today, history is repeating itself and, our historians are silent.

It all boils down to one fact… What kind of structure do you want your children and their children living in?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

Arizona Law and Illegal Immigration Law

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the stance of the Federal government as stated by Eric Holder is idiotic. To say that state authorities have no ability to arrest people found to be in violation of federal law opens a whole can of worms.

Is this a blanket statement? If it is then what about machine gun laws? They are federal. If a local law enforcement officer comes across a person brandishing a machine gun, that officer wouldn’t be allowed to even notify federal law enforcement about it… according to Holder. Let alone arrest him or her for it. Does this make sense to you?

If it is not a blanket statement then why the constitutional carve out for illegal immigrants? What legal basis could there be for it? So, if Mr. Holder claims that there is a carve out of federal law for illegal aliens, then is it because, there is a clear need for them in the US. One that is so important that it outweighs the mass of legal precedent. Legal precedent that is… all people are equal, under the law. Or has it changed to… all groups, are equal. There are some that are more equal then others. Illegal Aliens for example…

But if the administration is right, that local and State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal law, then I expect people will be getting out their printing presses and printing up $100 dollar bills. Only the FBI can enforce Federal law under the Holder leadership. A person could knowingly pass a printed counterfeit $20.00 bill and the Federal government would frown on a local police officer taking notice.

Slavery is another example. Does it make sense for local and State officials to turn a blind eye to a slavery ring operating in the US? Say…Trafficking in young girls? Under Holders assertion local and State police would be barred from reporting Human traffickers to federal authorities. To do so would make it less likely that people would report crime to the police. Using Holder’s logic.

What if Local police came across a treason plot that was about to be hatched? Holder would argue that it isn’t local police authority to intervene. If the government was overthrown and a communist regime set up, that then murdered twenty five million Americans, according to Eric Holder, that would be the price for liberty…. Or something. All to overturn a law Mr. Holder has not read.

No… Holder and the administrations want to use illegal immigration as a lever. A lever to use to move the American people to accept “comprehensive” reform. The law, as it is written, is “unsustainable.”

The definition of “comprehensive” is making all the illegal immigrants citizens… again. It had such a negative effect on illegal immigration the last few times it was tried it should definitely be tried again, and again, and again… Government loves to re-try things that have failed in the past. The bigger the failure the more it must try again.

The definition of “unsustainable” is anything the government wants to take over and control. If the government wants to take over and control health care they call it unsustainable. A word that, I am sure, has been thoroughly polled and tested… for it’s public palatability.

The real issue is that a faction of the American political Elite see an opportunity. They believe, if they make millions of poorly educated people who can’t speak English citizens, then the new citizens will reward that faction with their political support. It is not totally unfounded. Most of the poor and uneducated in South America vote reliably for communist governments. The faction of the American Elite that want to make them citizens agree with communist philosophy… they just call it progressivism. Their (illegal immigrants and the Elite’s) interests seem to be aligned.

Of course this would make a true underclass in the USA. Something the progressives have wanted for years. Real inequality… Not the ginned up, pretend variety they have been claiming is in the US. Real poverty, enforced by a language barrier and an education ceiling. Trapped in poverty and ignorance the Elite believe the Latinos will keep them in office forever…

Forever trapping the “undocumented workers” in poverty. Because to ever let them get up would undermine the power of the Elite… And if the power of the Elite is ever threatened… The Elite become dangerous even to their old allies.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

BP Disaster in the Gulf

Sunday, June 13th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the reason punishment is meted out, is to ensure that a given negative action, taken by a perpetrator, is not repeated. Punishment is a means to stop a cause. Punishment is not a means to enrich government. It is not a means to increase the power of a political Elite nor is it a means to keep a group down.

Another important factor to take into account is the actual perpetrator should be the one punished. Punishing an innocent bystander is not effective at stopping behavior in a person who has no morals. To be effective, punishment must be meted out to the perpetrator. To do otherwise renders it utterly ineffective.

Take the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It continues to be a politicized environmental catastrophe. News reports indicate that millions of barrels of oil have been released into the water. Underwater plumes of oil are fouling dolphins and coral. Beaches are in dire threat of being overrun with oil and tar. The entire ecosystem in the gulf is reeling under the weight of this disaster.

There are now reports that BP had a culture of intimidation when it came to bringing up safety concerns. Employees who voiced a safety question were routinely intimidated and harassed by management. This in direct conflict with every manual and the corporate safety philosophy. I.e.… Safety before production.

Many are calling for punishing BP. Withholding future leases in US waters. Perhaps stopping present leases and forcing BP to pay for all the environmental cleanup as well as huge fines. Perhaps to the point of bankrupting the company to make an example of it.

Who would be punished in this scenario? The shareholders of the company. BP is a dividend paying company, so, it is primarily held by retirees. I suspect retirees in Briton. So all the punishments put forward so far have been financial against BP. The only interests damaged in this scenario are those of retirees. Innocent bystanders…

Would the managers that created the, anti safety, corporate environment be punished? No… probably not. Under the most draconian scenario they would have to get another job. (No other scenario has a negative consequence). With a background in oil and production they would probably get a lateral transfer to another company. Those who have the most hubris will probably get promotions at another company. Where they can spread their insidious effect on the safety mindset to another company… like a virus.

I personally don’t think this would help improve the safety of oil drilling in US waters. In fact I imagine that it could make matters worse. The incentives line up that way. No matter how draconian government treats BP it will not lessen the likelihood of a future catastrophe.

So what to do? Well here’s a thought… Punish the people that created the corporate attitude minimizing safety. Criminally punish the managers that caused the disaster… What incentive would this set up for future corporations drilling in US waters?

Corporations are made up of human beings. Self interested maximizes. The managers who have made it to the top are generally pretty crafty. To effect the way a corporation works you have to effect the way the managers think. If a manager thinks, with no malevolence, that safety should suffer to production, that manager should have an example of another who thought the same thing. If that example is a promotion what is the incentive? If the example is, quality time in jail, what incentive does this set? Moreover what is the aggregate corporate incentive, in the future, towards safety?

The means to protect the environment is not to bankrupt BP… It is to criminally charge the managers that set up the corporate ethos that production trumps safety. In direct contravention of BP’s stated policy.

Get the incentives right and this will never happen again. Get the incentives wrong and you insure a repeat.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in International Power, Mercy, media, philosophy | No Comments »

Calderon’s Hubris

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Felipe Calderon should be deeply embarrassed. To be the head of a government that has done such a poor job that people want to leave in droves. Fleeing the violence, poverty and government corruption. A human hearted man would be ashamed…

But Calderon is not. He is unabashed. In fact, he even has the gall to go to the nation that is feeding, clothing, housing and otherwise providing for his citizens, and chastising it. Chastising it for not being friendly enough. This guy is the stereotypical hypocrite.

The laws against illegal immigration in Mexico are draconian. The laws regarding legal immigration are draconian as well. Add to this the utter corruption in the Mexican police force. Immigrants cannot receive welfare in Mexico. Especially illegal immigrants. Immigrants in Mexico have to have outside income or be employed by the Mexican state. They are not allowed to have jobs in Mexico.

The US media have been rife with stories about older people going into Mexico to buy prescription drugs. (That were prescribed to them). After the pharmacist sells the US citizen the drugs the pharmacist then calls the police. The police intercept the old folks. Arrest them. Then ransom them back to their children.

The total lack of opportunity in Mexico is directly related to the utterly corrupt and (fortunately less) socialistically inclined government. One example of the foolishness is that the Mexican government has nationalized all it’s oil. The Government run extraction company is extraordinarily inefficient. The ready access to oil money funds more corruption in the Mexican government.

Had the Mexican government went the capitalist route a (possibly Mexican) company would lease the land from the government to extract the oil. The company would be held responsible for environmental problems. The company would be responsible for cleaning up after the oil has been extracted and the company would be responsible to keep the infrastructure up to date. Another advantage of the capitalistic approach would have been better and more thorough geological research. More importantly… less money would be underground to contribute to governmental corruption.

The violence in Mexico is the result of the utter corruption in the Mexican government. Even as Calderon pointed his finger at the US for problems his government has created he disregarded the three fingers pointing back at him.

Put it this way… If the easy access to weapons in the US leads to violence in it’s neighbors… why is Canada so quiet? If keeping drugs illegal creates violence in neighboring countries… Why is Canada so quiet? Huge amounts of Marijuana come into the US from Canada.

So is the problem really somewhere else Mr. Caldron? Or is it closer to home?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in International Power, Mercy, Societal Myth, economy, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

What Government Can “Do For” The American People.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the absolute best thing the US government could do “for” the American people, would be to all go on an extended luxury vacation. Spending the rest of their term on it at the American tax payer’s expense. Maybe at Herod’s or Hedonism II. As soon as they announced their plans to do so the markets would rebound like we haven’t seen in our lifetimes. The economy would start generating jobs… in the private sector.

All government seems to do lately is to undermine any economic rebound. As we said in our last blog, their energy policies are a poison pill for any recovery. Moreover government’s policies on healthcare is another source of economic destruction.

The argument that other countries provide “corporate welfare” in the form of “free” healthcare is simple sophistry. To believe this one has to also believe that the money that provides the “free” healthcare is generated out of thin air. We all know this is not true. The money to provide free healthcare is taken from some producer to provide that producer healthcare. In the process efficiency is lost or quality goes down.

The “Stimulus’s” elephant in the room is that, as soon as the stimulus money runs out, the jobs will evaporate. Like the ether they are made of. All the jobs saved or created are government jobs. Jobs that will require tax increases to keep. Tax increases that will, again, undermine any economic recovery. Tax increases that will necessarily require the layoffs of these new or saved government workers.

Now government wants to have “targeted” tax cuts. The problem with targeted tax cuts is that they are less efficient than general tax cuts. Part of the reason is that no one knows where an economic rebound will take place. It may be in some overlooked sector of the economy. Or it may be in a sector of the economy that was thought to be dead. Government’s track record of picking winners is very poor. When government target’s a sector or action, that they feel is good for the economy, other sectors or actions that may have greater benefits are undermined. Simply because money and resources are diverted to the sector or action that has been chosen by government. The market is warped by this type of tax cuts.

Constantly threatening greater and greater regulation and interference with the markets forces business to focus on government instead of profit and job creation. When government is in the mood to gore some oxen… everyone wants to be on the side of government. (To protect their ox from being gored).

Simply threatening regulation has a negative effect on job creation. The threat means business must also horde money and resources as well as focus on government instead of their markets. Both to have in case of a new opportunity opening from the new regulation. Also to protect from opening a new branch, product or service, being regulated out of business by the regulatory innovation. Business necessarily slows when regulation is in the works. When it is perpetually in the works…

Politicians always want to tout that they got “something Done for the American people.” Every time they get something done however they make things worse. Most of what they need to get done are problems of government’s making. Unintended consequences of poorly thought out regulation. Government official’s know, the unintended consequences of their new, poorly thought out regulation to mitigate the consequences of their last, poorly thought out regulation, will be the side of the bread the butter will be on… next legislative season.

So… Send the president and his staff, the congress and their staffs all on a luxury vacation. After a few years they will be more rested and relaxed. The economy will have recovered. And they will be able to swoop in and do something for the American people… Break it again.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Wise Goernment… We Have Not…

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we have the least wise politicians in the last two hundred years. They toy with that with which they know nothing. (No way that could go bad).

This energy /climate change bill the house just passed will slow growth for decades. Until the year 2050 if it gets passed in it’s present form. The cap and trade part alone will inevitably drive up electrical bills around the nation. No state will escape unharmed.

To pass this giant power grab/tax increase by the Federal government at a time of economic malaise is actually stupid. Any recovery that gets started will have the caret pulled out from under it by this huge increase (legislated increase) of energy prices. The result will be a Wv-v-w-w-w–w, with each successive w smaller, recession.

I think the Elite are counting on their Industrialist friends to keep the economy moving. The Elite will punish those that don’t go along and reward those that do. Look at the example of Bank of America. If the government gets away with forcing BOA to open it’s own jugular vein, then all bets are off, as to the eventual end of the Elite’s power, to shape and mold industry. Ala command and control economy.

Illegal immigration into the United States and Europe generates societal upheaval. To have the Elite encourage it so they can have access to cheap nannies and gardeners, is tantamount to condoning it. The example of the Hyscos people in ancient Egypt shows us why unrestrained and unassimilated immigration is dangerous. Immigration pressure is always an effect of a good economy especially when coupled with liberty. Together they are a powerful draw to humanity.

Immigrants must be assimilated into society as a whole. There must be a societal myth among immigrants they need to assimilate and there must be real demands of immigrants to assimilate. This way immigrants can add their fortes to society in general. Keeping immigrants ignorant of the prevalent language generates societal friction. Keeping immigrants poor generates more societal friction. Throw them in slums and friction abounds. Add to this racism and you have a perfect recipe for societal upheaval.

Our leaders have decided before we hit the bottom of a recession, “the worse since the great depression”, to raise taxes (historical in magnitude), generate societal upheaval, and take command of the economy. Do these look and sound like the actions of wise individuals?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »