What Government Can “Do For” The American People.

Posted on February 21, 2010 by john

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.

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Energy and Recovery

Posted on February 17, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that any economic rebound that gets underway will be dragged down by world energy policies. Policies that drive up the cost of energy. Both intentionally and unintentionally. In the name of a hoax. (Climate Change) Economic rebounds are largely driven by low costs. Costs that were driven down by the recession. If government actions drive up basic costs of doing business, like energy, air is taken from the economic ball, blunting the rebound.

Energy is a leading economic indicator. Because energy is used as soon as a product or service is made or delivered. Other indicators lag energy. Partly because energy is a global commodity. The price is closely tied to use. Also other inputs that may or may not be traded on the commodity markets, lag in need.

Unless “Just in Time Inventory” is used business has a stock of inventory to use before it needs to purchase more. This puts a lag on other inputs to an economic upturn. But energy, in whatever form, is used and paid for within a month. Turn around is exceptionally fast and energy stocks compared to energy production (use) compared to historic averages is a snapshot of economic out put.

Here is the kicker. Energy production has been cut, and cut, to keep the price high. The US has seen the permanent closing of refineries. All the offshore drilling and production leases that George Bush signed have been shelved by Obama and Salazar. But economic demand for energy has dropped faster. Every time economists have looked for a tightening of energy supplies and inventories, they have grown. Despite cuts in all aspects of production. This bodes ill. The greatly reduced demand suggests greatly reduced economic output. GDP numbers notwithstanding.

This is strongly suggestive that actual economic output is very low. Cars Trucks, machines, and computers have not become exponentially more efficient over night. But the actual demand for energy has dropped much more than the GDP numbers would suggest. But there must be less of them running. If there are less trucks, cars, machines and computers running less work is being done by them. Less work being done by machines means less economic output.

The curtailment of future production by shelving offshore leases by the Obama administration should have leveraged crude prices higher. Remember when oil prices were at their highest, Obama said, they were not too high, that they just rose, too fast. If he believed it then he probably believes it today. Today he is president and has acted on those beliefs.

The high price of energy was a contributing factor to the economic contraction. It wasn’t a coincidence that the economic contraction followed a round of unsustainable energy price rises. As a basic input to the economy energy has a profound effect on profit.

Think about your own situation. When your cost of driving to work. (An unavoidable cost) goes from twenty dollars a week to fourty dollars a week. Something has to give. You must cut back on other expenditures to get to and from work. That drained money from other things. Those businesses then had less money to spend. Plus were strangled by the cost of energy too. The cycle was vicious. And we are setting it up again. I suppose… to ensure that we will have no rebound.

No matter how strong an economic rebound is, curtailed energy production, will inevitably curtail economic growth. Government policies have choked off future supply. You can see it in the volatility of crude oil prices. This suggests that as soon as demand goes up the price will skyrocket. Production is limited by governmental interference in the market. Demand is driven by economic output. The math is simple.

So if the price of fuel goes up fast and high we will know a recovery is under way. Barring a fast and hard price increase in energy prices we will see the economy stay in the doldrums. Any recovery will be presaged by $4.00 a gallon gas. (In the US). So as hard as it is to swallow… as soon as the economy recovers we will see very high energy prices again… With government that likes and wants them high…

Posted in economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Executive Foolishness

Posted on February 14, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that If President Obama does indeed use his executive powers to force legislation/regulation on energy, environmental and fiscal matters, as is reported in this article in the New York Times, he will put us, in the US, on the same tracks the European Zone are on. We can read our future in the reports coming from Europe today. Like the devaluation of the Euro. The pending default of Greece and the eroding standard of living in the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) nations.

The New York Times article can be read here;

Milton Freedman claimed that the European zone wouldn’t work largely on the grounds it is failing today. That is there is no incentive for Nations within the Euro zone to keep spending in check. European nations have been on a spending and regulating binge. The chickens must come home to roost sometime.

It is no coincidence that the PIIGS nations are the ones that are in the most trouble. Spain for instance is the farthest along the path to controlling green house gas emissions. The resulting regulation has ham strung Spanish business. Millions and millions of green jobs created notwithstanding.

Greece has a strong Communist party presence in their legislature. Communist philosophy is in fashion at Greek universities. The communist led protest that accompany any cut in spending are testimonials to this fact.

Out of control spending and taxing is no way to improve an economy. Government spending necessarily sops up available investment capital. Doing so lowers the availability of capital for business to upgrade the plant. It is precisely plant upgrades that improve the productivity of the workers. This productivity increase necessarily drives up wages and lowers costs. Making the whole economy more competitive.

Think about two carpenters. One has a stone to pound nails the other has a nail gun. With a nail gun, level, tape measure and circular saw and precut lumber a good man should be able to frame a wall in, say, ten minuets. A man with only a stone, hand saw, string and measuring sticks can frame a wall in say a day. Can you pay the man who, as a result of not having the tools, the same as you can the man who has tools? Of course not. Moreover, as the man with few tools, amasses tools, he becomes more productive lending him a higher and higher wage for less and less effort.

Too much government spending also hurts the aggregate balance of trade. This happens because when government spends money it must tax or borrow. When it borrows it takes money from the available capital markets. If there is demand for capital to improve plant interest rates will rise. This rise will demand foreign capital to make up the difference. The inflow of capital is counted in the aggregate balance of trade. One dollar if capital inflow, to fund government spending, counts against one dollar of value in an export, say a kitchen magnate.

So when government borrows money to provide some good or service to the people, to buy their loyalty, it is like you or I borrowing money and spending it going out to eat. No one would argue this a wise use of borrowed money yet government does this all the time. Borrows money and essentially wastes it.

I have to laugh when people argue, “Well, see the poor guy there, he had no money to spend, now the government has provided him with free health care, free housing, and free food, all at your expense. Look at all the demand that is generated.” To argue that, one must believe that if government did not take money from people, they would burn it. Pile it like leaves and burn it. Because, of course, people will spend and invest money they make. If they spend it demand will rise, if they invest it capital will be available for enterprise to invest in productivity enhancements.

Another unintended consequence of government borrowing and spending on frivols schemes, is it lowers the money available for our children, to invest in tools and equipment (plant). They will necessarily have a lower standard of living as we spend money frivolusly and indebt them for it.

Obama has the ability to make this an American headline;

He has only to follow through…

Posted in economy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Meritocracy

Posted on February 10, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that, as Time Magazine once said, Merit is the only real measure of a man. Most in the USA would agree that merit is a good scalar (yard stick) to measure people. It is the basis of the American Meritocratic system.

Aristocratic systems as we see in modern Europe and elsewhere are striated. They have more rigid hierarchy and less class mobility. Merit is a minor attribute in the greater scheme. Birthright is higher on the social scale of value. Not only in aristocratic systems, but in other, more popularly known as populist systems. Some people argue, (in these “populist” systems), that some groups have been discriminated against and so they should get preferential treatment… Essentially making these groups aristocrats (on some level). These are non meritocratic systems.

Other societies assign different values to different attributes. Some systems give great value to the elderly. This can be said to be a kind or type of meritocratic system (Meritocracy). The elderly contain a vast reserve of wisdom, those that hold the elderly to have value, have access to that reserve. To always rely on the written word is to blind oneself for that sake of it. Others assign great value to military achievement, still others value piety as the highest good. These are said to be the “Societal Myths” of these societies. And represent forms of merit.

Merit implies earning a given reward, position, accreditation, job, etc… To merit something is to have earned it by giving some good for it. When something is earned common usage implies that the earning was done by the “sweat of the brow.” Not taken from a plebian because he has no rights and the other has rights.

Aristocracy (class based) or Caste systems have within their societal myth that the goods of society are earned by virtue of one’s birth or status. Merit reverses this by saying that, to justly deserve a good, it must be earned by “the sweat of one’s brow.”

The sweat of ones brow can mean many things. The obvious would be to fashion a product from some primary input such as a stone. Less obvious means are to invent and record something or simply to facilitate it’s being fashioned. The good in question need not even be a thing… It could be a thing, but it could also be a good like an idea, fidelity, fecundity, or a service.

So we see that merit depends on the society in which we live. The definition of which can be fluid. But the overriding theme that runs through all societies is the idea that to merit something one has to have done something to earn it or have some natural talent to merit it. Systems that give value to birthright, party status, place in a tribe, etc are non meritocratic.

The argument against meritocracy is always the same. That some people have fewer marketable talents than others so that inequality will result in any meritocracy. To make this argument it is necessary to ignore the historical fact that, no system, ever devised by man, actually resulted(s) in equal in outcomes.

I say that, who cares how equal everyone is, if we are all starving, or how unequal, if the poorest among us are overweight. I would rather live in the unequal nation where the poorest have plenty than the one where we are all starving. Especially because I know we won’t all be starving… The Elite will have plenty. It is the masses that will always go without. No system is truly equal. Some just claim to be as a sophist way of getting power.

I hold that it is in fact America’s meritocratic system that has not only raised the lot of the American people but the lot of all mankind as well. If other countries and nations adopted America’s meritocracy, as well as some other American traits, starvation on Earth would be eradicated in less than a generation.

Lets just face it… to be anti meritocratic is to be lazy.

Posted in Group Politics, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Productivity as it Applies to Wages

Posted on February 7, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that One of the biggest factors leading to the historic rise in affluence of the American people in the last two hundred years is the unprecedented rise in productivity led by American workers. Today, the American worker is more productive than any other worker, anywhere in the world.

Productivity is simply a measure of the efficiency to produce a given output with given inputs. A higher productivity workforce can produce more and better outputs from the same inputs than a less productive workforce. The USA for example produces more GDP for the amount of energy it uses than any other nation. Including the European countries that signed on to Kyoto. They are far behind the US in energy efficiency as measured in GDP output per barrel of oil input.

The main reason why American workers are so productive, relative to the rest of the world and are paid more as a result, is that American workers have several advantages.

The US transportation infrastructure is more flexible. Americans, for the most part, own and use cars to get to work. By doing so American workers leverage their productivity. When a person drives to work they have the advantage of flexibility of work hours. They need not work in conjunction with mass transit schedules. Another advantage of mobility of the American workforce is that Americans are not tied to a certain urban area. If a better job opens thirty miles in the opposite direction, outside the reach of mass transit, an American worker can take advantage of the new opportunity. The worker tied to mass transit must stay within the footprint of the mass transit system.

Basic infrastructure is endemic. Telecommunications infrastructure is everywhere, as is electricity, water and sewage. These alone give American industry great flexibility. This allows US business to move to wherever they can find an underutilized workforce. (Knowing utilities will be available). This keeps competition for jobs between areas within the US near perfect. Actually perfect competition would level the playing field such that no area of a nation would enjoy a higher or lower standard of living. As perfect competition in business gives the consumer the best product at the lowest possible cost to him. Capitalism thrives on perfect competition in both business and in political jurisdictions.

A worker supplied with tools is far more productive than a worker without them. The better suited for the job the tools are the more productive will be the worker. In fact he will be able to work less hard and have greater output than someone without them. Take a screwdriver. A worker with one can easily start and sink screws say at a rate of one a minuet. A worker making do with a dime can start and sink one in three minuets. The worker equipped with a screwdriver can be said to be three times as efficient (productive) than the worker making do with a dime. Moreover the worker making do is subject to greater likely hood of being injured. Further reducing his output and dramatically increasing overhead.

What drives the invention and production of infrastructure and tools is innovation. Innovation that is fostered by business and government investing in basic research. Business, being beholden to the bottom line, must innovate where they can find quick payoffs. Government being less short term profit oriented, can invest in longer term innovation, with longer term payoffs… Like space travel.

Historical records show that the march of productivity in the US has not been uniform. It has had times of fast growth followed by periods of slow growth or even reductions in productivity. The period starting after the Second World War and ending around Nineteen Seventy Three saw a great expansion in American productivity growth. The end of this period of productivity growth followed Nixon’s dismantling the manned Space Program in favor of the then new space shuttle. US investment in Space technology stagnated until Ronald Regan started research on the International Space Station.

In the early Nineteen Nineties American productivity growth resumed. This coincided with the widespread replacing of non Y2K compliant computers by American business. This widespread rebuilding of American data manipulation kick started America’s growth in productivity. As always productivity grows when new technology is introduced and slows when new technology introduction is stagnant.

No other metric can predict the fortunes of a nation better then productivity growth. Maybe John Maynard Keynes was partially right. But instead of burying money at the bottom of a well and having business dig it up… Government should try to put people permanently on the Moon. When that has been done reach farther and farther out. This will ensure steady productivity growth for the workers of the world. Into the future.

Workers of the world would have higher standards of living and would have to labor less. A win for labor. But the Elite would loose leverage on us.

Maybe that is why the far sighted US government has gutted spending on NASA?

Posted in economy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Distributive Justice at Universities

Posted on February 3, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that since colleges and universities are the biggest proponents of distributive justice, it is only fair that they get to take part in the grand experiment, that they want the rest of us to participate in. Using the distributive justice model, we can clearly see, that the way college endowments are distributed is unjust. So the best means of rectifying this injustice, (according to these very institutions), is for government to seize from the rich colleges and universities then redistribute the money to poorer colleges and universities.

There are over fifteen intuitions of higher learning in the US that have more than a Billion dollars in their endowments. These happen to be the universities that have the biggest turn down rates and highest tuition. These huge endowments distort the ability of people to get quality college educations.

When a very few elite and select universities have far more money than they need, while others have far less than they need to run a quality curriculum, then we have a system set up to discriminate. Let’s look at the difference between the haves and the have nots in collages. Harvard University has over a billion dollars in it’s endowment. Some State collages have no endowments at all. So we can say the gap between the rich and the poor collages is a billion to one. When you have a gap between rich and poor collages that big it sets up a fundamentally discriminatory educational system.

Tuitions in American collages have been rising at over double the rate of inflation. The reason is that collages and universities are inelastic at increasing supply. But the demand rises every year. Despite the government’s increasing taxes and subsidies to collages and universities, the tuition rate, as measured in today’s dollars, is far less affordable than it was ten years ago. That affordability gap has been increasing every year due to the inelasticity of supply to meet increasing demand.

Redistributing these endowments would give colleges and universities incentives to increase supply. Poorer colleges, (that provide most of the growth in enrollment), would get the most benefit. This redistribution of funds would allow poor universities and colleges to expand their curriculums and enrolments. If this causes the supply of openings to go up the rate of growth in tuitions would be slowed or even reversed.

The endowments would be taxed on a progressive scale. The richest universities and colleges would have the most money taken from their endowments and the poorest colleges and universities would get most redistributed wealth. Like the income tax system this would level the playing field for colleges and universities.

The gap between the rich and the poor universities and colleges screams for a more equitable cutting up of the endowment pie. Lets let some of the little guys get a piece of the pie. Lets not let some fat cat universities and colleges suck up all the money. These greedy fat cats should give up some of what they don’t need or use. So that others may simply live.

Most college and university professors are big proponents of distributive justice. They argue that people with more should be taxed more and the money redistributed to make up for systematic and structural deficiencies. These manifest themselves as racism, sexism and all the other ism’s that appear in society. They also manifest themselves as unequal access to goods and services as well as unequal access to education. The educational piece of the puzzle can be solved by applying distributive justice, (as those that run our universities and collages argue should be applied to us).

As I would be happy to have my proscriptions applied to me, (life, liberty, right to property and to be recognized by government as a end in and of myself) I am certain that Colleges and universities would like to be treated as they propose others be treated. (To believe otherwise is to be a hypocrite). They will all be glad to have their proscriptions used on them, and see first hand… the results.

Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rights Of Kings

Posted on January 31, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that reverting to the rights of kings is not progress. Not matter what you call “king” or “rights” the sentence means the same thing. So if we substitute “king” for “proletariat” or “society” the intrinsic attribute are the same. The terms represent one person (in actuality) they allege a group but in fact only mean the person who represents the group. The Term “rights” can be replaced with “the needs of society” sustainability” or whatever catchphrase you want. The intrinsic attributes of the verb are the same. That the individual has no real rights not given him by his government.

Man in English is Man. Man in French is Homme. The two words sound different but mean the same thing. To say, that Man with red hair, is no different than to say, Set Homme avec cheveux rouge, though it may sound different. But a non francophone could be convinced it means anything. He knows no better.

The rights of kings goes back before biblical times. The Pharaoh rested his orders to have pyramids built for him on the rights of kings. The philosophy is paramount to a King’s right to war with his neighbors. Kill anyone under his reign at his whim. Seize anything he so chooses from anyone under his authority and enact any law the sovereign sees fit.

It can be argued that one of the first shots over the bow of the rights of kings, (since Roman times), came with Machiavelli’s Discourses On Livy. In which even the apologizer for the Borgas claims the best form of government is a stable republic. Harkening back to the Republican days of Rome. As another political philosopher once said, When Rome was one way [a republic] she suffered a continual line of victories and expansion. When she went the other way she suffered nothing but a long series of defeats and contraction. The name of king had been replaced with the title “Caesar,” and the Roman people pretended he wasn’t a king, like Tarquinius Superbus. Despite the fact that almost every “Caesar” was the equal of Tarquinius Superbus in villainy.

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas cleverly chastised kings when he said, “Now, as has been shown above, Monarchy, is the best government. If, Therefore, “it is the contrary of the best that is the worst,” it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government.”

The Renaissance furtively questioned the rights of kings. But if the Renaissance questioned the Reformation put the rights of kings on trial. Luther wrote “The Law is not given for the Righteous but the unrighteous.” He argued that the righteous would act morally because it is in their nature. But the unrighteous wouldn’t even follow the law. So law is an expedient to try to hold some of the unrighteous to some level of moral behavior. Another Luther quote is, “If a Prince is not wiser than his jurists, and does not know more than is in the Law books, He will surely rule according to the saying in proverbs xxviii “A Prince that wanteth understanding will oppress many with injustice.”.” In doing so, actually questioning if God put the King on the throne, to rule as he wished.

The philosophical foundation to overturning the rights of kings really got moving under the philosophy of the right of resistance. Which was met with “Sovereignty and the Divine Right.” In which the specter of chaos or worse Ares, as the arbiter of human machinations if the King’s sovereignty was threatened, was raised. Hobbes and Spinoza worked the argument into the purely secular. This philosophy combined with the right of resistance set up the philosophical underpinnings of Constitutionalism.

The Enlightenment was all about overturning the “rights of Kings,” in all it’s manifestations. Constitutionalism was to hold government to some standard. One that all people under it’s sovereignty can know and understand. And that, if government acted extra constitutionally, the people would have the right to rise up and restore constitutional government.

To say, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Fidel weren’t Kings (Tyrants, dictators, representatives of the people, big brothers, even Demigods) is to deny reality, regardless of the word used to describe them.

But today, we have people who call themselves “Progressive,” and resolutely believe they are progressive. They hold at the center of their political Philosophy that the interests of society (the king) trump the interests of the individual. That Societal interests lie in more benign and enlightened government control (King‘s Sovereignty). That the problems we suffer in society can be solved by government’s sustained and focused intervention. That, lack of sufficient revenues, is the biggest problems government has. Some believe that sustainability should be our paramount goal… in everything. That if we have to break some eggs to achieve sustainability… oh well. They believe that the rights of society supersedes the rights of the individual.

So I ask you… How does the philosophy of the Progressive movement differ substantially, except in rhetoric, from the rights of Kings?

Posted in Group Politics, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

International Banking Regulation

Posted on January 27, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to call for world regulation of banks, as Obama and Gordon Brown have, opens Pandora’s Box. Once the UN or other such governing agency gets it’s claws into the banking industry… the bribes, graft and kick backs will flow like a mighty river. A cataract capable of filling the wheels of civilization with debris.

Everyone knows that people are not good police of themselves. Else why spend the money on a judiciary or even traffic police. They would be completely redundant. But we do need police and we do need a judiciary. Mankind, as Carneades said, Imposed a set of laws and moors on itself out of necessity. Because people, being like animals, each seeking his or her own good, make true justice impossible. For a man to be truly just he must do damage to his own self interest…

So when taken to it’s logical conclusion if people in general are poor police of themselves…And the Elite are people. Then doesn’t it follow that the Elite, (Politicians who hold office and regulators), are poor police of themselves as well? But they have no real monitor. The fact that they effectively are not policed at all escapes most people.

Occasionally a politician is caught at some felony. There is a firestorm of media and then… the politician usually keeps his or her job. In fact, often they are given a raise and bonus. Tim Giethner, Charlie Rangel and taxes come to mind, this tax season. There are no negative consequences for politicians in the US who are caught doing something the average citizen would go to jail for. What are the incentives here?

Take it to a higher level… The UN. Totally un policed. No actual or proposed oversight. The Oil for food fiasco would have sent business men to jail for years and years. Not one corrupt UN executive or bureaucrat even lost their job.

Today bank coordination is done by the G 20 nations. But what do you think will happen if the utterly corrupt UN bureaucrats get the ability to regulate every bank in the world? Knowing that even if they are caught red handed in some criminal enterprise they won’t even loose their job? I’m thinking… Papa Smurf is wise enough to know the answer.

How would your company treat you if you were siphoning funds from a humanitarian effort of your companies into your own pockets. And in doing so you enabled a rival company to get information about your company. Most businesses would frown on this type of behavior. The UN has no problem. I wonder how many Oil For Foods are going on right now? And how many have gone on that we will never know about? This is an example of an agent not acting on behalf of the principle.

The answer to the principle agent dilemma, as it pertains to government, is the NUMA . The NUMA would set a group of Elite against the other group of Elite. As Madison said in the Federalist Papers, faction must be pitted against faction. He likened liberty to faction as air to fire. But he didn’t advocate removing liberty (air) to eradicate faction (fire). He advocated that to keep faction weak, keep them small and set them against each other. Like starting backfires. The NUMA is a vehicle to go there. To set the Elite in the NUMA against the Elite that make our law, regulate our industries, and police our behavior, would force all the Elite to follow the laws… as they are written.

Forcing the Elite to follow the laws as we are forced to do would be a great incentive for them to read some of what they are enacting. Perhaps if they read some of what they vote on they might not pass such foolish laws. Laws that they have no fear of being held to. Ignorance is no excuse under the law, (unless you write law, regulate law or adjudicate law).

Today, the more corrupt you prove yourself to be the more banks you get to regulate… a win win.

Posted in economy, International Power, Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Recent Supreme Court Ruling About Corporate Political Spending

Posted on January 24, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the way the unbiased media are playing the recent Supreme Court ruling, that the government cannot regulate anyone’s free speech, is despicable.

The first amendment reads as follows;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first Amendment to the US Constitution is all about, explicitly, denying the government the ability to regulate speech or religion. Especially political speech… “and to petition the Government”

I don’t see in this amendment anyplace that says that if enough people hate a group that the government then can regulate that group’s speech. My take is that the text regulates government… Not people or groups of people.

What is not prohibited from government by this amendment is that government can demand openness. Anyone who airs a political commercial should clearly state who is paying for and who made the commercial… Things take on a sour taste when they are done in the dark. But when things are done in the light of day they are much more sweet. Shining a light on what is now done in the dark can only improve the state of affairs.

Anyone who doesn’t think that the evil corporations didn’t affect elections, lawmaking and judicial appointments with their money, before this Supreme Court ruling, are innocents. They are innocent to politics and human nature. Where there is money and there is power that money will drawn to that power like water to low ground. If the overland rout is blocked it will go underground. Undermining society and societal structures.

This ruling should close the underground channels and place them in the top of the ground for us all to see. If we like what we see we will show our approval. If we are displeased we will show our disapproval. But the point is, it will be in front of our eyes for us to decide. We will be able to see the dealings.

The media are using the class envy argument. They are duplicit with Hollywood in vilifying corporations. Think about the villain in almost every adventure movie you have ever seen. Most are corporations. Some are power mad factions within a governmental structure but most are corporate heads. This impresses our subconscious that corporations are bad. The unbiased media are playing our emotions like a harmonica.

But what is a corporation? It is a group of people who have freely associated to do some business. They provide good paying jobs. Places to invest our capital for when we retire and they provide a heavy tax base to run government. They are not good or bad. They simply are. They inflict us with negative externalities and they bless us with positive externalities. Some are good and some are bad. But, unlike governments, corporations are subject to the market. (Unless government intervenes and warps the market by the use of underground money).

I believe that we are much smarter than the Elite explicitly give us credit. If we seem to be ignorant enough to let our politicians get away with too much it is because we are engaged in our own affairs. We are busy. We have to take time and resources away from productive labor for our personal good to keep up on political affairs. We would prefer that the Elite simply ran the nation so that we can run our own affairs. Unfortunately the Elite cannot be trusted. History, ancient through recent, proves this over and over.

So if we have access to the information we will make the right choices. People are cagy when they see their advantage and disadvantage. Corporations can only affect elections and such, aboveboard, if their arguments have merit. That is what the Elite are afraid of. The Elite always seek to limit debate. Close avenues of argument and vilify the other side. Because the Elite are arguing for the people to do damage to their own self interests. To have open debate about such a thing would allow the people to see the truth. No one hurts themselves. Not the poor, the middle element or the rich. We would stomp down the progressive plans in an instant if we could hear all side of the argument.

The Progressive Elite can never let that happen.

Posted in Group Politics, Law, media, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are We as Social as Socrates Said?

Posted on January 20, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we humans are a species that have developed the ability to individually specialize within the context of being very social. No other species has that ability. We alone choose our individual specialty then exercise it at our discretion. Giving us an immeasurable ability to adapt. In doing so we have virtually tamed nature.

Other species has some specialization. Ants for one. They have a queen and nurse ants, drones, marshal and workers. Ants have a strict social hierarchy. In these superficial qualities they appear to mimic our specialization albeit on a smaller scale. But when you look further into it the correlation breaks down.

Ants are born and are identified by their epigenetic settings. Settings that are placed in them when they are in the larval or pupae stage. Ants have no free will because they are programmed from birth. They are more like a little automaton or a cog than an individual. Scientists have studied ants for thousands of years and not one scientist has reported a single incidence of an ant acting as an individual.

And so ants have little ability to adapt to changing situations. They can move into new environments after they adapt genetically. But our ability to adapt within the context of an individual’s lifetime is extraordinarily quick. That is one of the advantageous of our individual specialization within the context of our sociality. We can take advantage of new and opening environments or situations more quickly than any other animal or plant. That we have actually left our home planet and landed individuals on our Moon is an ideal example of our ability to adapt.

When we are allowed to freely choose what we do… we are more efficient at it. When we are forced into a course of action that we feel is disadvantageous to us, we resent it, and work at some diminished capacity. People freely choose to do what they are good at. We all like to do things we are good at. When we like doing a thing we quickly improve our ability and we are far more efficient at the thing then someone who is resentful.

Look at our children. Children individualize fast. One child likes trucks another child might like guns. Children like, the toys they like, regardless of their parent’s wishes sometimes. These are the first inklings of a person’s individuality. Individuality that allows us to specialize to our mutual benefit.

That is why Socrates said we are the most social animal on the planet. We freely associate, we depend on one another and [the larger the society the greater the aggregate benefit do to the greater specialization}. Take a City State like Socrates home. In the City State there were basket weavers, shoe makers, cart makers, carpenters, house builders, tailors etc… The ability of the City State to make the goods it needed was limited by the population, proximity to resources, climate, etc… The City State needed to trade for goods it could not produce within it’s territory. This trade was and is the manifestation of the fact that the greater the number of people specializing the better of everyone will be. (Other City States had different specialties).

This truth is also born by the fact that the more people that are able to specialize the greater the aggregate benefit. Societies that underserve their populations have huge numbers of poor. The reason a person is poor is that their ability to specialize has been taken away or reduced.

Someone’s ability to specialize can be taken away many ways. No access to education, some form of ism, a societal myth that they cannot get ahead, etc. Alternatively someone can give up their ability to specialize by favoring leisure to productive labor. An example would be an addiction… to whatever.

By this definition, a society that has a lot of poor people, has some block to the people’s ability to self specialize. Using this metric poverty is simply the manifestation of a societies keeping people from reaching their potential. The greater the restriction the greater the societal poverty.

So, If we seek to eliminate poverty we must first seek to eliminate impediments to people’s reaching their potentials. Subsidizing poverty only incentivises and perpetuates it. But there again poverty is a means to power for the Elite… It is not in the Elite’s interest for us to know that our real strength lies in our ability to individually specialize within the context of being very social. They are empowered by poverty.

But it’s poverty that is the wage of forswearing our fellow man.

Posted in Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment