FT168: “Gasoline and guns empower women, not birth control and abortion.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 3rd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Gasoline let’s a Woman work a Job she Likes that Pays Well instead of Settling for a Nearby Job she Hates

In the old days men worked and women stayed home and raised the kids.  And on the weekend the man got the lawnmower out and cut the lawn.  At first he muscled a push-mower across the lawn.  Then he got a gasoline-powered mower.  Even our senior citizens can keep cutting their lawn in their advanced years.  By getting a self-propelled gasoline-powered mower.  We may not think a lot about it but cutting our lawn is a big part of home ownership.  And today’s lawnmowers allow anyone do this task themselves.  Including the fairer sex.

A widow living on her own in the home she shared with her late husband can cut her lawn with a self-propelled gasoline-lawnmower.  Allowing her to stay in her home without paying someone else to cut her lawn.  Who may try to take advantage of a senior citizen.  It will also allow a younger woman to own a home without having to pay some stranger to get familiar with her and her home as they cut her lawn.  While having a power mower may keep some overly interested neighbors from coming over to help ‘the little lady’ as she struggles behind a push-mower.  And a loud gasoline-powered lawnmower lets her get the job done quickly.  Without inviting unwanted conversation over the noise.  Or something else unwanted.

Yes, gasoline has empowered women like nothing else.  It gives her the freedom to work where she wants to work.  Because a gasoline-powered car allows her to work a job she likes and pays well.  Instead of settling for a job within walking distance from her home.  Or a short walk from some public transportation line.  A gasoline-powered car empowers the single mother.  She can use it to take her kids to school in the morning.  Then drive to her job.  After work she can drive to pick her kids up from school.  Or daycare.  And then home.  Things she couldn’t do if she had to rely on public transportation.

Gasoline let’s a Woman get Home Safely no matter the Weather or Time of Day without Molestation

Yes, gasoline is a blessing for women.  It gives them freedom.  And independence.  As well as security and safety.  With a car she doesn’t have to wait at night at a desolate bus stop.  Or enter a deserted subway platform.  And while driving her car no one can ‘feel her up’ like they can in a crowded subway car.  Or worse.  It’s gasoline that protects women.  An electric car won’t.  A gasoline car with a full tank will let her sit in the biggest traffic jam on her way home at night in a blizzard.  Gasoline will keep that engine running.  And that engine will heat her car, defrost her windows and keep her headlights on so she can see.  But if she was in an electric car she would be shutting off the heat, defrosters and headlights as she begins to worry whether she has enough charge to make it home.

On the weekend she can run to the grocery store.  And fill up her gasoline tank in broad daylight.  When it’s safe.  Which will let her commute about an hour and a half roundtrip each day during her workweek.  But if she finds she’s running low on fuel she can stop at a brightly lit gas station.  Swipe her credit card.  Fill her tank.  And be back on her way home in 10-15 minutes.  You can’t do that with an electric car.  Only gasoline will do this for you.  If an electric car runs out of charge it could strand a young lady in a bad neighborhood.  Where she’ll have to call and wait for a tow home.  Alone.  And vulnerable.

Gasoline will get a woman safely home better than anything else.  On the weekend she can get the gasoline-powered mower out and cut her lawn quickly.  Leaving her time for other yard work or gardening she may want to do.  Something else gasoline let’s her do.  She can hop in her car and drive to however many nurseries she wants to find the plants she wants to grow.  And she can load up potting soil and mulch in her car.  And drive it home.  Without relying on a man helping her.  She can have and do whatever she wants to do because of gasoline.  For gasoline empowers a woman like nothing else.

A Handgun with a High-Capacity Magazine will allow a Woman to Stop a Man—or Group of Men—from Harming Her

But a woman living on her own can attract some unwanted attention.  Some may be interested in her charms.  Some may be interested in what she has in her home.  Or both.  Thinking a woman living alone is an easy mark they may break in at night.  Now it would be difficult for a woman to fight off a couple of intruders.  Or even one strong man.  For women are the fairer sex.  They are not as large as men.  Giving men the clear advantage in any physical confrontation.  Especially if a woman is asleep in her bed.  Vulnerable.  And if men are in her home she probably won’t be able to run into the kitchen to get a knife for protection.  But even if she hid one in her bedroom she would have to put herself in great danger to use it.  Because to stab someone you have to be close to them.

But there is another way.  She can protect herself against an intruder.  Even if they have a knife.  All she needs is a handgun.  And a high-capacity magazine.  So even if three men tried to assault her in her bedroom she could keep shooting until they cannot attack her anymore.  And she can do this from a distance.  She can kneel on the far side of her bed.  Across from her bedroom door.  And start shooting them as they rush through the bedroom door.  With the distance they have to close to get to her and a high-capacity magazine she will be able to shoot them down before they can reach her.  In fact, having a handgun with a high-capacity magazine gives her the advantage.  Even if she is far out-muscled by her assailants she can shoot as if she is as large and as threatening as they are.  Only a handgun with a high-capacity magazine can do this.  Not a knife.  Or a revolver.  Or a shotgun.  A revolver will give her six shots.  But if she’s scared her first six shots could miss.  And then she will have to reload bullets into the cylinder in the dark.  Difficult even for the best law enforcement officers.  And a double barrel shotgun will have only two shots.  If she unloads both barrels into bad guy #1 then she will have to reload to protect herself from bad guys #2 and #3.  In the dark.  Plus, a shotgun has a long barrel and is not easy to use in tight areas.  Finally, if a woman is being stalked or a prison released someone who assaulted her she can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon to protect herself.  A handgun with a high-capacity clip will fit into any purse.  A shotgun won’t.

Give a woman gasoline and a handgun with a high-capacity magazine and she is free to live however she wants to.  They will empower her.  Leveling the balance of power in her life.  Allowing her to do whatever a man can do.  And to protect herself from any man.  Or group of men.  While the left says birth control and abortion empower a woman they won’t let her do much but have a lot of sex.  They won’t help her get to her job and safely back home.  They won’t take her kids to school.  They won’t get her to the grocery store.  They won’t cut her lawn.  And they sure won’t protect her from an assailant.  No, if the left truly wants to empower women they should stop attacking gasoline and the internal combustion engine.  And they should stop trying to make it harder for law-abiding people to own a gun.  For a handgun with a high-capacity magazine will allow a woman to stop a man—or group of men—from harming her.  No matter how strong and powerful they are.  Something birth control and abortion just can’t do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT166: “Multiculturalism celebrates are differences while breeding anti-American terrorists.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Entrepreneurial Spirit gave America the Economic Prowess to spend the Soviet Union into the Ash Heap of History

Immigrants used to come to the United States with great enthusiasm.  They were excited that they were going to be an American.  They wanted to assimilate.  They learned their American history.  Better than most people born in the United States.  When they took the oath of citizenship a euphoric joy filled them.  For having fulfilled their greatest dream.  If they heard their family members speak the language of their birth country they rebuked them sternly.  And told them, “We’re American now.  Speak English.”

Yes, there was great pride in becoming an American.  As immigrants saw America as Ronald Reagan saw it.  A shining city upon a hill.  Whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.  People in the Old World yearned for the freedom of the New World.  Religious freedom.  Freedom from an oppressive government.  Economic freedom.  Where everyone had the same chance to be whatever they wanted to be no matter who their parents were.  For in America there was no privilege.  Just hard work.  And the ability to keep the fruit of all your labors.  This is the American dream.  This is why they came to this shining city upon a hill.

Immigrants wanted to assimilate.  They wanted to think of themselves as Americans.  For it meant something.  Something special.  It meant you were a citizen of the greatest country in the world.  For individual liberty unleashed great prosperity.  An entrepreneurial spirit.  American ingenuity.  Making America the leader in new technology.  Making work less tedious.  And life more enjoyable.  Giving America the highest standard of living.  Great food surpluses that let America feed the world.  And the military power to defeat Nazism and stand up to communism.  And the economic prowess to spend the Soviet Union into the ash heap of history.

Our Public Schools teach our Children that we Stole the Land from the Native Americans and got Rich on Slave Labor

People came to America to be Americans.  They remembered their culture.  But their culture did not identify who they were.  They were Americans.  Not hyphenated Americans.  As Theodore Roosevelt said, “In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans.”  We were not Italian-Americans.  We were not Polish-Americans.  We were not Irish-Americans.  We were not German-Americans.  We were Americans.

Our public schools once taught our children about the Founding.  The abuses of European monarchies.  Unjust taxation.  And the perverse powers of privilege.  Things the Founding Fathers found abhorrent.  The Founding Fathers knew the history of Greece and Rome.  King John and Magna Carta.  And the English Civil War was not that distant from their time.  They were students of the Enlightenment.  They read Adam Smith.  Believed in laissez-faire economics.  And championed limited government.  When they formed a new country they drew from this vast pool of knowledge.  And made the greatest country in the world.  One with religious freedom but based on Judeo-Christian values.  A country so great that rulers of other nations wanted to hinder its ascension to further greatness.  While the people living under those rulers wanted to be Americans.

This experiment in self-government had some growing pains.  We were not perfect.  But we were far more perfect than any other government out there.  But our public schools don’t teach that today.  Instead, they teach our children that the Founders stole the land from the Native Americans.  That we stole our southern land and California from the Mexicans.  Who gained their independence from Spain who colonized these lands.  Land they had stolen from the native people who were living on it at the time.  (Interestingly, when the Mexicans gained their independence from a European power the land belonged to the Mexicans.  But when the Americans gained their independence from a European power the land belonged to someone else.)  That we stole Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish.  Who stole it from the people living on these lands when they arrived and stole it.  Yet it is the Americans who were an imperialist power stealing land.  Never the Mexicans or the Spanish.  And, of course, that America grew rich and powerful thanks to free slave labor.  Despite that very same economic system causing the South to lose the American Civil War.

The American Educational System failed to make Dzhokhar Tsarnaev NOT burn with a Seething Hatred of America

Then the attacks on capitalism came.  The system that made America great.  All of a sudden it was unfair.  It was unjust.  And it exploited the poor to help the rich get richer.  A better system was socialism.  For it was fair.  It was just.  Because it put people before profits.  (Just ask those who lived in the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China under Mao, North Korea, Cuba and the people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe how wonderful it was to live where they put people before profits.  Here’s a hint.  A lot of these people were shot while trying to escape their social utopia).  Unlike the most evil thing in the world.  The corporation.  Who underpaid their workers.  Raped the land of its natural resources.  And polluted the environment.  So not only were they evil for pursuing profits they were evil for exploiting both people and the planet.  So we needed more government to regulate capitalism.  And those evil corporations.  So our children learned the evils of capitalism and the goodness of government in our public schools and universities.  Where their teachers and professors taught them all of the badness of the United States.  While glossing over all of its goodness.  Imbuing some shame into our students for being American.  Even making some burn with a seething hatred of the United States.

And so began the diversity movement.  And multiculturalism.  If America was so shameful we should not celebrate what unified us as Americans.  But we should celebrate our differences.  We no longer celebrated the things people immigrated to the United States for.  But the things they fled in the countries they emigrated from.  We are no longer Americans.  We are now hyphenated Americans.  And it was the thing preceding the hyphen that made us great now.  Not being American.  Because America had a shameful past.  And had a long way to go to atone for her sins.  Making a lot of hatred of America now home-grown.  Especially in the American universities.  Where radicals from the Sixties who wanted to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism now write the curriculum.  And these radical professors disparaged judgmental Christianity every chance they could.  For they liked the sex and drugs of their Me generation.  Mocking the Judeo-Christian values that made America great.  Something those who were not Christians ate up.

So the American university system is a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.  Perhaps explaining why some of the greatest terrorist attacks on American soil were perpetrated by people educated in the United States.  Such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Architect and mastermind of a series of terrorist attacks.  Including the attacks on 9/11.  Who attended college in North Carolina.  Earning a degree in mechanical engineering.  And Anwar al-Awlaki.  Who earned a degree in civil engineering from Colorado State University.  He also studied education leadership at San Diego State University.  And worked on a doctorate at George Washington University.  Then moved to Yemen and became the Osama bin Laden of the Internet.  And then we have the Boston Marathon bombers.  Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  Who immigrated to the United States about a decade ago.  With Dzhokhar being so young he probably has no memories of his native Chechnya.  A hotbed of radical Islamist terrorism.  Locked in a bitter war with Christian Russia.  Where barbarous acts in that conflict have rivaled the atrocities of the Eastern Front in World War II.  Yet he burned with such a seething hatred of an America founded on Judeo-Christian values that he could place a bomb next to an 8 year old child.  A seething hatred he learned from someone while living in America.  Either directly from the American educational system.  Or indirectly as that educational system failed to make him NOT burn with a seething hatred of America.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT159: “There’s more to know than most people know.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some want to Lower the Voting Age despite our Teens’ Penchant for Making Poor Decisions

Parents can’t tell their kids anything.  Because they know everything already.  Despite doing a lot of stupid stuff.  They smoke cigarettes.  Do drugs.  Binge drink.  Drink and drive.  Have unprotected sex.  And a whole lot of other things that can have lasting consequences.  Consequences such as cancer.  A drug addiction.  An arrest for driving under the influence.  An arrest for vehicular manslaughter.  Catching a venereal disease.  Becoming a single mother while still in high school.  Or becoming a single mother with a venereal disease.  While still in high school.

Teens and young adults have a history of making poor decisions.  Why?  Is it because they are stupid?  No.  It’s because they are young.  Inexperienced.  And grow up in an environment that tells them they are far wiser than they are.  As they grew up people constantly told them that they are smart.  They are wise.  And that we need to listen to what they say.  For they are our future.  Some even wanting to bring them into the political process earlier.  By lowering the voting age.  Which is an odd thing to do.  Considering their penchant for making poor decisions.

Of course kids are all for lowering the voting age.  For if they could vote earlier there would probably be more than 2 states that have decriminalized marijuana by now.  And they could lower the drinking age, too.  For let’s face it kids are going to binge drink no matter what we say.  Just as they are going to smoke marijuana and have sex.  So we might as well help them do these things.  And lowering the voting age will be a step towards making that happen.

The Founding Fathers wanted a Government of the People not a Ruling Elite in a Faraway Place telling them what’s Best for Them

So we know what kids want.  Less parenting.  And more fun.  They want the freedom to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.  And believe they are enlightened like our Founding Fathers were when they wanted the freedom to do what they wanted to do.  Of course, the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment was a lot different from that of the kids’ today.  The Founding Fathers were interested in science, economics and religious freedom.  They were familiar with the history of Greece and Rome.  Magna Carta.  The Protestant Reformation.  The English Civil War.  They were proud of their membership in the British Empire.  The most enlightened and free empire, or country, in the world.  Thanks to their representative government.  But when Parliament did not let them have any representation in that house while passing laws to govern them, well, they didn’t love the British Empire as much as they once did.

The Founding Fathers weren’t fans of mercantilism.  Then the dominant economic policy of the day.  European powers fought each other for colonies.  Their colonies shipped raw materials back to the mother country.  Who then used them to manufacture finished goods.  That they then sold to the world.  And to their colonies.  Keeping the net flow of gold and silver flowing to the mother country.  While exporting more finished goods than they imported.  With the state helping a few well-connected domestic businesses.  Keeping the state coffers flush with money.  While the people paid higher prices than they normally would have paid.  Thanks to those government policies favoring the well-connected businesses.  Basically like what China is doing today.  Maintaining a strong export economy with cheap labor.  That doesn’t benefit the Chinese masses all that much.  Creating basically two Chinas.  The rich in the cities.  And the poor and impoverished everywhere else.

The Founding Fathers wanted liberty.  Political liberty.  And economic liberty.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Where the people taking the greatest risk profited the most.  Not the state.  They wanted a limited federal government.  Just large enough to protect the nation.  To treat with other nations.  Those things best suited for the federal government.  While the vast majority of power belonged to the states.  Closer to the people.  And not in some distant land.  They wanted a government of the people.  Not a ruling elite in a faraway place telling them what’s best for them.  That’s why they fought for their independence from a distant power in the first place.  The British Empire.  And they sure didn’t want to trade one distant power oppressing them for another.  They didn’t want money corrupting the federal government.  They wanted the seat of financial power and the seat of government power separated.  For the greatest abuses of power came when wealth joined power in the Old World capitals.  London.  Paris.  Madrid.  Thomas Jefferson wanted the federal capital as far from the bankers and merchants in New York as possible.  Which is why they placed the new federal capital in a swamp on the Potomac River.

Sadly, those who Know the Least often determine who Wins Elections

Those who have studied history understand how the United States came to be.  And what made it the world’s number one economic power.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Free trade.  Sound money.  In particular the gold standard.  They saw history prove Say’s Law.  Supply creates its own demand.  No one demanded personal computers or the Internet.  But when those who brought these to the market place showed how wonderful they were demand soon followed.  They saw history prove David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  How free trade lets nations produce what they do most efficiently and trade for what they don’t.  Thus increasing the economies of all nations trading freely.

People who know history understand that the prevalent economic policy today, Keynesian economics, is a failed policy.  For Keynesian economic policies are more like mercantilism than free market capitalism.  Calling for more government intervention into the market.  Inflationary monetary policy (i.e., printing money).  As well as tax and spend fiscal policies so the government can redistribute wealth.  So the government can choose winners and losers.  Not the free market.  Policies that all go against what made America the world’s number one economic power.  The Seventies, a time when the Keynesians got everything they wanted when President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, saw double-digit inflation, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.  Everything the Keynesians tried failed to improve the economy.  In fact, their policies only made the economy worse.  And the only thing that pulled us out of the stagflation and misery of the Seventies was Ronald Reagan.  Who embraced the classical economic policies that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Say’s Law.  David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  Sound monetary policy (i.e., noninflationary).  The policies we call Reaganomics.

People who study history know this.  But teens and young adults?  Those more interested in drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and having sex?  They haven’t a clue about economics or their history.  Yet they often determine elections.  Sad but true.  And it’s just not teens and young adults who don’t understand economics or know their history.  Thanks to the hippies of the Sixties moving into education most people coming out of our public schools don’t.  For the hippies of the Sixties changed the curriculum.  To help them in their quest to destroy capitalism.   By dumbing down the curriculum.  So it’s easier for Keynesians to keep passing the failed policies of the past.  To help them keep expanding the size of government.  To turn this nation back to what the Founding Fathers fought to get away from.  The mercantilism of the Old World.  Of present day China.  Where the few in power have all the power.  And all the wealth.  All because people think they know more than they know.  And vote as if they know everything they need to know.  But there’s more to know than most people know.  And, sadly, those who know the least often determine who wins elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Opportunity Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 4th, 2012

Economics 101

Those on the Left are all for Choice as long as you Choose what they want you to Choose

Choice.  It’s what life is.  Every day we make hundreds of choices in our life.  The communists called that a burden.  And that their way removed all that stress from our lives.  The stress of constantly having to choose.  They came up with a new freedom.  Freedom from choice.  To live under oppression.  Like a slave.  Where you no longer had the burden of making a choice every waking hour of your day.  You simply took what the government gave you.  And relaxed.  Truly free.

It turned out the people living under communism preferred having that burden of choice.  And took every opportunity to escape the communist ‘freedom’.  To a freedom where you were free to choose whatever you wanted.  Instead of taking what central planners gave you.  Those on the Left always had a soft spot in their hearts for communism.  And Soviet central planners.  For they never cared that much for free markets.  Laissez faire capitalism.  Freedom of choice.  Because people so often chose poorly in their opinion.  For they weren’t as educated and enlightened as they were on the Left.  And therefore chose the wrong kind of foods to eat.  The wrong kind of beverages to drink.  The wrong kind of cars to drive.  The wrong kind of power to generate.  And the wrong people to vote for.

No.  Those on the Left are no fans of choice.  Except, of course, when it comes to abortion.  When it comes to abortion then they are big fans of choice.  But not so much when it comes to us choosing what to eat, drink and drive.  Or how we generate our energy.  So when it comes to choice those on the Left are like the Soviet central planners.  They are all for choice.  As long as you choose what they want you to choose.

When making any Economic Decisions we make our Choice based on Opportunity Costs 

But we choose.  Because we can.  At least with most things.  But how do we choose?  Does price determine what we choose?  Sometimes.  Quality?  Sometimes.  Loyalty?  Sometimes.  Sometimes it’s one of these things.  Sometimes a combination of all of these things.  Sometimes it’s none of these things.  So what is it that makes up your mind when confronted with a choice?  Do you know?  You do.  For obviously you’re making the choice.  But the ‘why’ we may have to coax out of you.  For you will probably not be able to explain why.  At least not as well an economist can.

The study of economics is all about choice.  And trying to determine what influences people’s choices.  So economists can offer economic policies to maximize economic activity.  By maximizing that thing we ultimately trade for.  Which is what?  Happiness.  We choose to increase our happiness.  Or utility in the parlance of economics.  The things we choose are the things that will give us the greatest happiness.  Or the greatest utility.  But if you’re like me you never saw ‘utility’ or ‘happiness’ expressed as units on a price tag in a store.  Price tags show only price.  Which tells us little how happy something will make us.  So how do we choose the things that will maximize our happiness?  Especially if you’re looking at two different things that have the same price?

Easy.  We don’t make our decision by looking at what we’re buying.  We make our decision based on what we’re not buying.  What we are giving up by buying this thing or that service?  What might have been had it not been for this purchase?  What opportunity we’re passing on to make this purchase?  What cost are we paying in lost opportunity by committing to this purchase?  In other words, when making any economic decisions we make our choice based on opportunity costs.  On an amount of happiness we’re giving up to acquire some other amount of happiness.  And whatever the number of our choices the end result is the same.  What we choose gives us more happiness than all other possible alternatives.  Regardless of price, quality or loyalty.  Though they could influence us when there is a tie.

Liberals make us Buy not what Increases our Happiness but what Increases their Happiness

You can’t put a price on happiness.  That’s what they say.  And they are right.  Whoever they are.  For example, luxury cars are nice.  But they are expensive.  Subcompacts are not as nice as luxury cars.  But they are not as expensive either.  So if you were choosing between these two cars which one would you choose?  I can’t tell because I don’t know your income.  But I can guess at your decision process.  You’re going to compare opportunity costs.  Driving a luxury car gives you enormous amounts of happiness.  For the limited time you spend driving it.  Enormous happiness for a limited amount of time.  Okay.  But what are the opportunity costs?

Let’s say your daily commute to and from work is one hour.  But when you get home you enjoy 4 hours between surfing the Internet and watching cable television.  When you’re not at work or home you like to use social media on your smartphone interacting with your friends.  And using your smart phone apps to maximize your fun in the evenings and on the weekend.  You like to spend your Sunday mornings at the coffee shop with you tablet reading the online Sunday papers.  The hours of driving happiness come to 10 hours a week.  And the hours of online/watching cable happiness comes to 32 hours a week.  Now being that you spend more time online or watching cable than driving then it’s safe to say that driving brings you less happiness than those other activities.  Because luxury cars are expensive they come with a high monthly payment and a high insurance premium.  Which means you will have to cut back on other spending to afford the luxury car.  So to afford the luxury car you have to give up your cable and home Internet access.  And cut back on your minutes on your smartphone.

The opportunity cost of the luxury car is giving up cable TV and cutting back on Internet access and smartphone minutes.  The opportunity cost of keeping those things is getting a subcompact car instead of a luxury car.  This is the ultimate decision we make in all of our economic decisions.  Which will cost us more in sacrificed happiness in the long run?  Which makes those decisions easy.  In the above example you would probably have never given the luxury car any serious thought.  This is why free markets work so well.  Why laissez faire capitalism works so well.  Because the economy is full of individuals making these decisions quickly.  Far quicker than any Soviet state planner.  And with far more insight into our own wants and desires than any Soviet state planner.  And in the aggregate this drives economic activity.  Bringing the things we want to market.  The things that give us the greatest amount of happiness.  The things that have the lowest opportunity costs.  Unlike Soviet central planning.  Or American liberal Democrat central planning. 

No.  These people try to change our purchasing decisions.  Making us buy not what increases our happiness.  But what increases their happiness.  Which is why when liberal Democrats are in power there is a general economic decline.  Because they do alter our purchasing decisions.  By increasing the opportunity costs of the things that increase our happiness.  So that we buy fewer of them.  But we don’t buy more of the things they want us to buy.  Because those things don’t increase our happiness.  When they subsidize hybrid cars (paid for with higher taxes from us) to get us to buy them it doesn’t make the hybrid cars give us any more happiness.  It just leaves us with less money because of the higher taxes.  So we buy less of everything else.  And in the aggregate this lowers economic activity.  Leaving us all less happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Islamists, and Iran, win Big in Egypt, Surprise, Surprise, and will Write their New Constitution

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Well the Egyptians have voted.  And now begins the winter of their discontent (see Islamists secure top spot in new Egypt parliament by Marwa Awad and Lin Noueihed, Reuters, posted 1/21/2012 on Yahoo! News).

The Muslim Brotherhood won by far the biggest share of seats allocated to party lists in Egypt’s first freely-elected parliament in decades, final results confirmed, giving it a major role in drafting the country’s new constitution.

Banned under former leader Hosni Mubarak and his predecessors, the Brotherhood has emerged as the winner from his overthrow. Islamists of various stripes have taken about two thirds of seats in the assembly, broadly in line with their own forecasts.

The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) has promised all Egyptians will have a voice in the new parliament, but Islamists are now set to wield major influence over a new constitution to be drafted by a 100-strong body parliament will help pick…

The Revolution Continues coalition, dominated by youth groups at the forefront of the protests that toppled Mubarak, attracted less than a million votes and took just seven of the 498 seats up for grabs in the lower house…

Only one woman was among the appointees which is likely to further disappoint feminist groups after women won only a handful of seats in the elections. Mubarak had traditionally used the quota to boost the representation of women and Coptic Christians.

So, only 7 of the youth who overthrew Mubarak in hopes of a better future will have a say in the new government.  And only one of them is a woman.  Kind of like the Iranian Revolution.  When all those college students, men and women, overthrew the Shah.  And how did that turn out for them?  If you were a woman not good.  They lost their freedom.  That same freedom they once enjoyed while protesting the Shah of Iran.  Much like the women who brought down Hosni Mubarak will no doubt lose as well.  Based on the strong Islamist wins.

Who would have thought that all those who protested Mubarak and wanted a brighter future would have voted that very future away from themselves?  For with the Islamists writing the constitution you can bet that the new government will be very Islamist.  And much like Iran.  Which no protester said at the time they wanted.  In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood went out of their way saying that Egypt would not be like Iran.  Despite their own personal desire for it to be like Iran.

Funny how history repeats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

When China talks about Limits and Constraints over Property Rights we need not fear the Economic Dominance of China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 11th, 2011

Week in Review

You know what’s funny?  People oblivious of history giving advice.  You know what’s not funny?  People lying to empower the state so they can oppress the people.  You decide which this is (see Op-Ed: The impoverished ‘Asian century’ by Chandran Nair posted 12/8/2011 on China Daily).

Western leaders concerned about climate change must understand that economic instruments like emissions trading are not a panacea. For Asia, resource management must be at the center of policymaking, which may include Draconian regulations, and even bans. Otherwise, resource shortages will push up commodity prices and create crises in food, water, fisheries, forests, land use, and housing, thereby leading to greater social injustice.

The West must help Asia to challenge the idea that consumption-led growth is the only solution, or even a solution at all. And Asia must adopt three core principles to avert environmental and social crises. First, economic activity must be secondary to maintaining resources. Second, Asian governments must take action to re-price resources and focus on increasing their productivity. Third, Asian states must recast their central role as being to defend our collective welfare by protecting natural capital and the environment.

All of this implies that Asian governments will need to play a far greater role than officials in Europe or America in managing both the macro-economy and personal consumption choices, which will require very sensitive political choices regarding individual rights, as well as policies that powerful business interests – many of them Western – will resist.

Asian governments will sometimes need to set strict limits on resource use – and have the tools to ensure that society respects these limits. They should begin, for example, by stressing that car ownership is not a human right. The debate about rights must emphasize constraints, not the utopian definitions of Western politicians.

There have been other countries that have talked like this.  In fact, they ruled like this.  The former Soviet Union.  The People’s Republic of China (China before capitalism).  North Korea.  The former communist Eastern Bloc.  All of these countries have enforced Draconian regulations and bans to re-price resources and increase productivity.  And you know what it got them?  Oppressive police states.  Chronic shortages of staple goods.  And famine.  Oh, and anyone trying to escape these socialist utopias were summarily shot.  For those who got away their families suffered.

China still has poverty and famine in the country.  It is only where they allowed capitalism that things are going well.  The eastern cities.  But all is not well there.  There’s unrest.  For these people have tasted a little freedom.  A little too much for the government.  So now they there’s talk about restricting this freedom for the good of the people.  I doubt many are buying this.

With this kind of talk the United States and Europe need not fear the economic dominance of China.  It sounds like the capitalist gravy train may be coming to an end.  For when they champion limits and constraints over property rights that’s usually when workers stop working hard.  Because when you sacrifice your wants and desires for the common good (i.e., the state), that’s when you start doing just enough to escape being punished.  And no country grew or stayed great doing that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #77: “Liberals only call for bipartisan compromise when they’ve lost majority power and can no longer dictate policy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2011

English Law and Capitalism gave People Freedom few knew in the 18th Century

Politics is a class struggle.  The ruling class against everyone else.  The ruling elite fights to keep the power in the hands of the privileged few.  While everyone else tries to wrest it away.  So they can live a better life.  Free from tyranny.  And oppression.

Life was pretty good in British North America.  The colonies were growing.  Their English law and free market capitalism gave people freedom that few knew in the 18th century.  Over in Europe the masses were poor and worked for subsistence.  Over in British America, though, a thriving middle class was emerging.  Like I said, life was pretty good.  Until the French had to go and spoil everything.

Great Britain and France were at war.  Again.  And this one was a world war.  The Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War in North America).  Great Britain ultimately prevailed.  And made all French North America British.  We call it Canada today.  But conquering a world power and managing an empire that stretched around the globe was expensive.  And to make matters worse, the treasury was running low.  They needed more tax revenue.  But Britain’s land owning aristocracy was already heavily taxed.  And they were none too keen on paying any more.  So what to do?

Well, there was this.  There was a vast continent on the other side of the Atlantic with a lot of wealth that just got a whole lot safer thanks to some brilliant, and very expensive, military engagements.  Surely, they would not refuse to pay for some of the safety they gained in the recent war.

The London Ruling Class wouldn’t let a bunch of Backwoods Upstarts challenge their Authority

Well, as it turned out, yes, they could.  And did.  And don’t call me Shirley.

At the time, the American colonialists were proud Britons.  They loved their way of life.  And the representative government enshrined in Parliament.  Based on the Rule of Law.  Only thing was that they had no say in Parliament.  No representation.  Which was fine.  For awhile.  Being that far from the seat of government had its advantages.  But it was a different story when that distant power started flexing its muscle.  And a great power desperate for money could be rather presumptuous.

Now the colonists were reasonable people.  They were willing to make some kind of bipartisan deal of fair-share sacrifice.  But they wanted to talk about it.  They want to sit in Parliament.  And they wanted more say about their future on the new continent.  They were already very unhappy with some of the treaty details the British made with the French.  And the Indians.  Forbidding western expansion?  And allowing the French Canadians to practice their Catholicism in their very backyard?  No.  These would not do.  Americans had to have more say in America’s future.  And the British response?  “Shut your bloody mouths you insolent swine.  You do as we say.  And like it.”

I’m paraphrasing, of course, but you get the gist.  The ruling class in London wasn’t about to listen to a bunch of backwoods upstarts challenging their authority.  No, they were going to dictate policy from London.  And the Americans were going to accept their second class status and do as they were told.  Well, long story short there was a rebellion, the colonies declared their independence from Great Britain and a new confederation of states was born.

After Winning Independence the States got Drunk on Democracy

The Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 until the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war in 1783.  It was a long and bitter war.  Especially in the South where it evolved into a civil war between Patriot and Loyalist.  Independence did not come easy.  Nor was it cheap.  Like Great Britain, the young confederation of states racked up a large war debt.

With the common enemy defeated the several states went their own ways.  And threatened to destroy what they just won.  Some states were fighting over land.  Over tariffs.  Trade.  The united confederation of states wasn’t very united.  And they were more on the road to becoming another war-plagued Europe than the great nation envisioned by George Washington and the others who had served in the Continental Army.  Who saw the greater America.  Beyond the borders of their own state.

And the worst danger was democracy.  Mob-rule.  Religious persecution.  And the general feeling you didn’t have to do anything you didn’t want to.  The people were drunk on democracy.  They were voting themselves whatever they wanted.  In debt?  No problem.  We’ll pass debtor laws to protect you and rip up those contracts you signed.  Or we’ll give you worthless money we’ve printed to pay your debts.  And we’ll pass a law forcing creditors to accept this worthless money as legal tender.  Even though it’s worthless.  The Rule of Law was collapsing.  As was the new ‘nation’.

Madison and Jefferson feared the Power a Permanent Government Debt Gave 

This was quite the pickle.  An oppressive ruling class was bad.  But so was mob-rule.  They needed something else.  Something between these two extremes.  That would somehow strike a delicate balance between responsible governing.  And liberty.  The solution was federalism.  As created in a new Constitution.  Drafted during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia.  Which created a new central government.  That shared power with the states.

Getting the new constitution ratified wasn’t easy.  Most of the old Patriots from the Revolutionary days hated the thought of a new central government.  They didn’t trust it.  This was just King George all over again.  Only on this side of the Atlantic.  The wrong side.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison worked tirelessly for ratification.  They wrote a series of essays explaining why it was the best compromise possible.  These essays became the Federalist Papers.  An extensive set of checks and balances would greatly limit the powers of the new federal government.  And the only thing the new central government would do would be the things the several states couldn’t do well.  Coin money, treat with other nations, raise an army and navy, etc.

Hamilton and Madison succeeded.  The constitution was ratified.  And the United States of America was born.  And soon thereafter Hamilton and Madison (and Jefferson who was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention) parted ways philosophically.  Hamilton wanted to assume all the states’ debts and fund it.  It was the right thing to do because they had to pay it to be taken seriously on the world stage.  But this scared both Madison and Jefferson.  They feared the power a permanent government debt gave.  Money and government was (and still is) a dangerous combination.  All the world powers consolidated money and power in their capitals.  And all the great mischief of the Old World was a direct result of this combination.  It’s what lets the ruling class oppress the people.  Money and power concentrated into the hands of a privileged few.

Had Liberals lived during the Revolution they would have been Loyalists

Fast forward a few hundred years and we see exactly what Madison and Jefferson feared.  The federal government is bloated beyond the Founding Fathers worst nightmares.  And handling such vast sums of money that would even make Alexander Hamilton spin in his grave. 

We’ve come full circle.  We began by rejecting a distant ruling class.  And we now have a distant ruling class again.  In Washington.  Made up of liberal Democrats.  And obedient RINO Republicans who toe the liberal line.  And the nation has a permanent debt so large that we’ll never pay it off.  Thanks to out of control government spending.  It’s as Madison and Jefferson feared.  All of that spending and debt require ever more taxation.  And ever more borrowing.  And whenever taxation and borrowing is not enough, they manufacture a crisis to scare us into raising both taxes and the borrowing limit.  For we have no choice.  Because if we don’t the consequences will be unbearable.

This is the liberal way.  Big Government.  The bigger the better.  With all power concentrated into as few hands as possible.  Their hands.  The privileged few.  The ruling elite.  Who like to dictate policy when they have majority power.  And cry foul when they don’t.  For the only interest they have in bipartisan compromise is when they can’t have their way.   

Liberals like to invoke the Founding Fathers (and Ronald Reagan) whenever they can in some twisted explanation of why they would support their policies (i.e., the new central government was created to raise taxes and therefore would approve high taxes).  But their actions are clearly more consistent with King George and his ruling class than the Founding Fathers.  And had they lived during the Revolution, no doubt they would have been Loyalists.  To support and maintain the ruling class.  And their privilege.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,