What doesn’t Kill You Makes you Stronger
They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. And you can see that in military basic training. There have been some good movies showing what military basic training is like. Perhaps one of the best is Full Metal Jacket. Where Gunnery Sergeant Hartman played by R. Lee Ermey wasn’t acting as much as reliving his days as a Marine Corps drill instructor. Watching it you may come to hate Sergeant Hartman for he was pretty sadistic. But they didn’t design basic training to be a pleasant experience. They designed it to prepare recruits for the worst thing in the world. War.
In the miniseries Band of Brothers we follow Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, from basic training through D-Day and to the end of the war. Airborne training followed basic training. And was harder. Fewer people make it through airborne training than they do basic training. Ranger training is even harder. And fewer people make it through Ranger training. But airborne units and Rangers get the more difficult missions in combat. Because they can do more. For their training is more difficult. But it didn’t kill them. So it made them stronger.
Perhaps the most difficult military training is the Navy’s SEAL program. Where if they get a good class of recruits they may have 1 in 10 complete training. For it is that hard. In fact, some have died in training because they refused to give up. That’s why you will find few tougher than a Navy SEAL. They are tough. And they never quit. Which is why we give them the most difficult missions to complete. Missions that others would find impossible. Proving that the more brutal and difficult training is the stronger and more able we get.
During the 20th Century the American Left has tried to replace Rugged Individualism with the Nanny State
Those who founded this nation were tough people who worked hard and never gave up. They provided their own housing, food, clothing, etc. If they needed something they figured out how to provide it for themselves. They worked long hours. Survived brutal winters and hostile environments. But they never gave up. In fact, they raised families while doing all of this. With no help from government. As there were no government benefits. Yet they survived. Even prospered. For what didn’t kill them only made them stronger. These rugged individuals could do anything. And did. Which is why the United States is the leader of the free world. And the world’s number one economy. Because of that rugged individualism.
This is the way America was before the progressives came and softened us. And made rugged individualism somehow a bad thing. Beginning with Woodrow Wilson. Then FDR. LBJ. And then President Obama. A long line of American presidents who eschewed individualism. And thought in collective terms. When the Americans rejected socialism they gave us progressivism. When we rejected communism they gave us liberalism. The 20th century has been a tireless attempt for those on the left to replace rugged individualism with the nanny state. With their brilliant selves in power. Managing the economy. And making life fair. To undo the unfairness of laissez-faire capitalism. To make the United States better. And more according to their vision. Just like the socialists did. And the communists did. Yet no socialist or communist state became the leader of the free world. Or the world’s number one economy.
Those who lived in those socialist and communist utopias learned one thing. It was better to live someplace else. And their ultimate destination? The United States. Yet those on the left refused to believe that life was worse in those states where they put people first instead of profits. Like that unfeeling and cruel laissez-faire capitalism did. Which is why Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama worked tirelessly to move the United States in the direction of socialism and communism. Because they cared for the people. Or the power they got by making so many people dependent on government.
Someone receiving a Comfortable Level of Benefits will not be pushed to Leave their Comfort Zone
So is it about the power or that thing about helping people? What is it exactly that progressives/liberals really want? Well, we can look at the historical record to determine that. By looking at a point in time when America really changed. With the assassination of JFK. JFK’s chances of reelection weren’t great. Which is why he went to Texas. As he needed LBJ to deliver Texas to the Democrats. Instead of electoral victory, though, he fell to an assassin’s bullet. The great outpouring of grief and love for their fallen president exceeded the love he got before the assassination. The heightened emotions allowed LBJ to pass the many programs of the Great Society into law. In the memory of JFK. The greatest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal. Making the welfare state the largest yet. In an attempt to put people first. Not profits. In fact, LBJ declared a war on poverty. By providing government assistance to lift everyone out of poverty. And he championed civil rights. LBJ was going to make the United States that utopia socialists and communists always dreamt about. For everyone. Blacks. And whites. Especially blacks. Who were suffering great discrimination then. But things would be different for them. Starting in the Sixties everything was going to get better. And how are blacks doing today? Well, if you use employment as a measure, not good (see Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The federal government has done a lot for blacks. More than any other minority group. Affirmative Action was to correct all past wrongs. By making it easier to get into college. And to get a job. Yet we don’t see that when looking at the unemployment numbers. In fact, the group the government does the least for—white men—is doing the best. They don’t need any help because they won life’s lottery. By being born white. According to liberals. So there’s no Affirmative Action for them. Yet they have half the unemployment rate black men have. While white women have half the unemployment rate black women have. And white 16-19 year olds have half the unemployment rate black 16-19 year olds have. Brilliant progressives/liberals have been trying to make life better for blacks for 50 some years now and have failed. Despite this blacks have never been more loyal to them. Which answers the question what the Democrats care more for. The people? Or the power the people give them. By getting them dependent on government. Who they tell over and over again that they would have nothing if it weren’t for them. The Democrats. For blacks just can’t make it on their own without help. Even though after receiving all of that help blacks are suffering the greatest levels of unemployment. Clearly something isn’t right here. And it goes back to that thing that made America great. Rugged individualism.
You know what the difference is between a white SEAL and a black SEAL? Nothing. Blacks have equality of opportunity in SEAL training. And that’s all they need. They don’t need special treatment. And the Navy doesn’t tell them that they do. All they need is the strength. And the will. Which will be there if you don’t keep telling people that they can’t succeed without the government’s help. Because if you keep doing that they will come to believe that. And they will keep voting Democrat. Looking for help. Whereas those who face adversity and overcome it grow stronger. Because what doesn’t kill them makes them stronger.
Handing out government benefits will make people like you. But it won’t get them a job. For someone receiving a comfortable level of benefits will not be pushed to leave their comfort zone. And while they languish in their comfort zone they will not gain work experience. Allowing others to gain experience and move up in their careers. Making them more employable. While those with less experience and less education are less employable. And that’s what Democrats do when they buy votes with government benefits. Make people less employable. And blacks have been especially useful to them. As they can stoke the fires of racism to drive blacks even further to the Democrat Party. By calling Republicans racists. Because they want to take away their benefits. Just because they hate black people. Or so goes the Democrat line. So they keep voting Democrat. While losing their rugged individualism. And suffering higher levels of unemployment than everyone else.
Tags: affirmative action, airborne, basic training, comfort zone, Communism, Communist, Democrats, FDR, federal government, government benefits, individualism, JFK, laissez faire capitalism, LBJ, liberalism, liberals, nanny state, Navy SEAL, President Obama, Progressives, progressivism, put people first, Ranger, rugged individualism, SEAL, socialism, socialist, unemployment, welfare state, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, Wilson
Week in Review
The Founding Fathers gave us a republic because they feared democracy. Or mob rule. In a republic you elect responsible people to represent you in government. In a democracy it’s majority rule of the people. Often when they are agitated or angered about something. Which can trample on minority rights. If the mob is angry over a group of immigrants working for a lower wage the mob can vote a ban on those immigrants. Round them up. And send them home. Or imprison them. This is the danger of a true democracy. Anything the majority agrees on can become law. Which is why the Founding Fathers gave us a republic. And prayed that only wise men who shared their Enlightenment views would enter government.
Another danger of a true democracy is that once the people understand that they can vote themselves the treasury they will. While responsible representatives won’t. Until people start looking at government as a way to get rich. And become professional politicians. Instead of the part-time representatives the Founding Fathers envisioned. Which transformed the republic into a democracy. Only it’s our representatives that have descended into mob rule. As professional politicians buy votes by giving the people generous government benefits that the state will soon be unable to afford. Which is what is happening in France now (see French president booed at WWI ceremony posted 11/11/2013 on the Associated Press).
France’s unpopular president ignored jeers by protesters as he laid flowers at the tomb of the unknown soldier during a ceremony marking the end of World War I…
Shouts of “Hollande resign!” rang out and some demonstrators wore the red caps that have come to symbolize an anti-tax movement that has caused violent protests in Brittany in recent weeks…
Hollande’s popularity has sunk to record lows amid growing dissatisfaction over weak economic growth, high taxes and rising joblessness.
The French people voted the socialist into office because they wanted more free stuff. Or wanted not to lose the free stuff they already had. Courtesy of their social democracy. Which promised cradle-to-the-grave government benefits. But declining birthrates led to a falling population growth rate all over Europe. Such that the number of people receiving those government benefits is growing while the number of people paying for those benefits is not. French president Nicolas Sarkozy tried to be responsible. While socialist presidential challenger François Hollande (the guy the French now hate) said the problem was that they weren’t taxing the rich enough. And the other usual socialist claptrap. Well, the socialist won. He raised taxes. The economy tanked as expected. And now the French people hate him.
This is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared about democracy. The French republic devolved into mob rule. And tried to vote themselves the treasury. Which leads to only higher taxes. Or cut benefits as the state can no longer afford to pay for these benefits. Which is where the French are now. And the Americans will soon be.
Tags: democracy, Founding Fathers, Francois Hollande, government benefits, Hollande, Mob rule, professional politicians, Republic, socialist, true democracy, vote themselves the treasury
The Left needs Racism to Exist so they can Continue the Fight to End Racism
George Zimmerman had what pretty much everyone said was a fair trial. And extensive attempts to detect a racial motivation have been in vain. Most people seem to agree that race was not a factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Yet since the ‘not guilty’ verdict some have been saying things like if Trayvon Martin was a white kid Zimmerman would not have followed him. And that if Martin was a white kid and a black man shot him a jury would have found that black man guilty of first degree murder.
These things are so obvious that some people (primarily those on the political left) are demanding the federal government charge Zimmerman with a race-based hate crime. And for violating Martin’s civil rights. Despite pretty much everyone having said it was a fair trial. And extensive attempts to detect a racial motivation have been in vain. But it’s now about race. Why? And where is their concern for what’s happening in Chicago? Where the black on black murder rate is soaring?
Government fixes problems. And Big Government fixes big problems. Problems like racism. By creating agencies and writing legislation to end racism. Increasing the size of the government. And increasing their power. Putting more and more people into powerful positions. Earning large salaries. While activists agitate. Getting more time in the news whenever they speak out against racism. Staying relevant. And allowing them to collect vast sums of money to continue the fight to end racism. Which brings us to why the political left is giving the Zimmerman case a racial component when none exists. For they need racism to exist. So they can continue the fight to end racism. Because it gives them power. And pays them so well.
The Left has transformed Rugged Individualism into Complacency, Lethargy and Subservience
The political left wants to expand the size of government. They want the government to do more for the people. Like the social democracies in Europe. And they want the people to be dependent on the government. With the government redistributing ever more wealth. And they want to be the people deciding who gets this redistributed wealth. Because of the power it gives them. And the wealth. For the more wealth that passes through the government the more they can skim off the top. So they can make ‘investments’ in selected businesses. Businesses, coincidentally, that their friends own. Who return the favor with campaign donations. From the very tax money they ‘invested’ in those businesses.
But their crony capitalist friends in business are not the only recipients of government largesse. The government gives alms to the people. To make them dependent on government. Form Social Security to Medicare to Obamacare to food stamps. Not a lot to make their lives really comfortable. But enough that they can survive without working. Getting them complacent. Lethargic. And subservient. A permanent underclass. Afraid to lose their government benefits. So they keep voting the political left into office. To keep their benefits. Keeping them complacent. Lethargic. And subservient. A long way from the rugged individualism of our grandfathers.
But it’s just not the crony capitalism. And the alms. There are also the agencies and the legislation. And the vast government bureaucracy. That becomes so entrenched that it becomes impossible to get rid of it. Which is why government only grows. It never shrinks. Because government bureaucracies take on a life of their own. And like any living organism they grow. And the more agencies and legislation for that permanent underclass the greater that vast government bureaucracy is. The more positions of power. And the more money that passes through government.
The Left is making the Zimmerman Verdict about Race because it gives them Purpose, Power and Wealth
During the mid 1800s the majority of southerners lived and worked on family-owned farms. Were poor. And did not own slaves. For slaves were expensive. The great slave populations were on the plantations. Owned by the rich planter class. Who ran the government. A true Old World aristocracy if there ever was one. You’ve seen Gone with the Wind. Glorious mansions. Huge landholdings. Servants. And family names so great they were nearly royalty. People treated them like royalty. And they expected the people to treat them as royalty. For they were. In the plantation South. And this was what they were fighting to preserve. That part of the Old World that the United States broke free from. Where some people were better than you based on their birth. And it mattered what your last name was.
So they plunged their people into war. Telling them it was about states’ rights. And northern aggression. When it was nothing more than these few people, the planter elite, the southern Democrats, trying to keep the South in the 18th century. With them enjoying their positions of privilege. While the masses toiled for them. In fact they were so exalted that they actually owned human beings. Like barons. And earls. And dukes. They liked that world. Just as landowning aristocracies have for millennium. Then the Founding Fathers had to come along and muck everything up. With their “all men are created equal.” And their Constitution. Creating a government of the people. Instead of what it should be. A government of the privileged elite. Then that abominable Abraham Lincoln. And his “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” How they hated that. And ever since losing the Civil War the southern Democrats struggled to maintain their position of privilege.
The descendants of those southern Democrats, liberals, still seek privilege and power. And few have suffered as much to advance their cause than blacks. They destroyed the black family with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Where the government replaced the father in the black families on AFDC. Saying these women didn’t need to get married. Or live with the fathers of their children. So black children grew up without fathers. Or male role models. Which spurred the creation of Big Brothers. To provide positive role models for these black kids harmed by liberal policies. So they wouldn’t turn to the streets. Or gangs. Which they did. And still do. In alarming numbers. And today little has changed in the black community. The vast majority of black children are born to single mothers. And the streets of Chicago run red with the blood of black teens and young adults. But the political left doesn’t care about these blacks. Because their deaths can’t help them politically. Especially when it’s their policies that caused all of this violence. But when a light-skin Hispanic (who those on the left called a ‘white’ Hispanic) kills a black teen, why, that’s close enough to a white man killing a black teen. And THAT can help them politically. Which is why the left is making this a case about race. Because it gives the left purpose. And purpose leads to power and wealth.
Tags: AFDC, alms, aristocracy, black family, Chicago, complacent, Democrats, dependent on government, fair trial, George Zimmerman, government benefits, government bureaucracy, lethargic, liberals, Martin, Old World, permanent underclass, plantation, planter class, political left, power, privilege, race, racial motivation, racism, redistributed wealth, royalty, rugged individualism, slaves, Southern Democrats, subservient, the fight to end racism, Trayvon Martin, trial, vast government bureaucracy, wealth, Zimmerman
Public Schools teach Kids that Republicans are Racist Homophobes who hate Children, Poor People and Immigrants
Americans are historically conservative. Gallup shows that approximately 40% +/- of the people call themselves conservative. While only approximately 20% +/- call themselves liberal. Most of the rest call themselves moderates. Gallup shows this as a general trend from 1992 through 2011 (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). Yet President Obama is a liberal pushing liberal policies. So how did a conservative nation vote in such a liberal president?
Well, there are the usual suspects. The public schools are teaching our children to be liberal. Thanks to teacher unions. Who contribute generously via their union dues to the Democrat Party in return for favorable policies from the Department of Education. So our public schools work to ‘free’ our children’s minds from the influence of their parents. The push for public-funded childcare is just a way to get our children away from their parents sooner. For the younger they start the longer their education/indoctrination will last.
While our kids are in our public schools they learn the ‘important’ things. Global warming is a reason to tax and regulate business. Capitalism is unfair and evil. Government is good. While glossing over the Founding Fathers and their creation of a government based on the assumption that government is bad. And the less of it the better the people were. No. Our kids don’t learn that. Instead they learn worthless things and come out of our schools knowing very little about their country. Or their government. Just watch Watters’ World on The Factor. And listen to how little our young people know when Jesse Watters asks some basic questions. You’ll get the ‘deer in the headlights’ look when asked a question school children could have answered a generation or two earlier. But despite their lack of knowledge on anything that isn’t trending in social media they will tell you that Fox News is biased. And that Republicans are racist homophobes who hate children, poor people and immigrants. Which is why they vote Democrat.
Democrats expand the Welfare State to get People Dependent on Government Benefits
So there’s public education. And for those who go on to college our public universities will pull these kids even further left. Then there’s the mainstream media. Which is liberal. Reinforcing everything our kids heard in school. And all the people they look up to in the entertainment world tend to be liberal. Further reinforcing what these young people heard in school. Even though only 20% call themselves liberal that 20% is a young person’s world. So a liberal view does not seem like the minority view it is to them. Which is why they vote Democrat.
Then there are public sector unions. And labor unions. Who have a vested interest in keeping Democrats in office. These unions collect dues from their members. And spend a large portion of those dues to help Democrats win elections. In return these Democrats implement union-favorable policies. Also, these union members will act as foot soldiers during elections. Helping to get out the vote. Making phone calls. Going door to door. And helping to get people to the polls to vote Democrat.
Democrats also try to expand the welfare state. To get people dependent on the government. So these people look to government as their sole provider. And after awhile being dependent on the government these people become completely dependent on the government. And fear losing their government benefits. For after being out of work for so long the thought of reentering the workforce is frightening. Which Democrats tell them Republicans want to do. They want to take away their benefits. And force them into hamburger-flipper jobs. Which Democrats point out are beneath them. Even if they have no education or jobs skills beyond entry level employment. So they vote Democrat. To protect their benefits.
Liberals win Elections by Indoctrination, Quid Pro Quo, Dependency, Fear, Patronage and Abuse of Power
But it doesn’t end with simply getting people dependent on government benefits. They implement policies that attack and destroy conservative institutions that encourage people to stand on their own two feet. So they just don’t have to rely on people’s desires and wants. But can tap into their fears. Which is why FDR passed Social Security into Law. And why LBJ expanded Medicare. For these two great liberals knew they could make the elderly permanent Democrat voters by putting the fear of God in them that Republicans will cut their Social Security and Medicare benefits. So a large percentage of seniors vote Democrat. As they won’t be able to pay their bills or see a doctor if they lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Because they trusted the government to provide for them in retirement.
And then there’s Obamacare. Which will do to all non-seniors what Social Security and Medicare did to seniors. Put the fear of God into them that Republicans will kill them by cutting their Obamacare benefits. But it’s more than just the fear. Obamacare will require a massive bureaucracy. Layers of new government jobs. Public sector union jobs. Which will do what public sector unions and labor unions do on a grand scale. But the big way Obamacare can help Democrats win elections is having the IRS enforce it. Having the IRS determining who is eligible for a subsidy. Determining how much someone can afford to pay for their Obamacare. And determining how much to fine someone. Allowing the IRS to ‘Tea Party’ the political opposition.
This is how liberals win elections. Not by winning in the arena of ideas. But by indoctrination, quid pro quo, dependency, fear, patronage and using the power of the executive branch for political ends. They’ve become everything the Founding Fathers feared. Who wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent things like this from happening. Who didn’t believe the Constitution was a living document for future generations to interpret and adjust for the times. Because they didn’t write it to give people stuff. They wrote it to restrict the powers of the federal government as much as possible. Because it is government’s nature to oppress and abuse her people. So you don’t want them to have a lot of power. For Lord Acton’s words are just as true today. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something at least 40% of the American people understand.
Tags: arena of ideas, conservative, Democrat, Democrat Party, dependency, dependent, dependent on the government, education, fear, Founding Fathers, government benefits, homophobes, indoctrination, IRS, labor unions, liberal, liberal policies, Medicare, Obamacare, patronage, public schools, public sector unions, quid pro quo, racist, Republicans, Social Security, teacher unions, union dues, vote Democrat, welfare state
Wise Men in Governments can Do Anything but Pay for their Nanny States
Economics changed in the early Twentieth Century. America once again had a central bank. Progressives were expanding the role of government. And a new economist entered the scene that the progressives just loved. For he was a macroeconomist who said government should have an active role in the economy. A role where government tweaked the economy to make it better. Stronger. While avoiding the painful corrections on the downside of a business cycle. Something laissez-faire capitalism caused. And could not prevent. But if wise men in government had the power to tweak the private sector economy they could. At least this is what the progressives and Keynesian economists thought.
That economist was, of course, John Maynard Keynes. Who rewrote the book on economics. And what really excited the progressives was the chapter on spending an economy out of a recession. Now there were two ways to increase spending in an economy. You can cut tax rates so consumers have bigger paychecks. Or the government can spend money that they borrow or print. The former doesn’t need any government intervention into the private sector economy. While the latter requires those wise men in government to reach deep into that economy. Guess which way governments choose to increase spending. Here’s a hint. It ain’t the one where they just sit on the sidelines.
Governments changed in the Twentieth Century. Socialism swept through Europe. And left social democracies in its wake. Not quite socialism. But pretty close. It was the rise of the nanny state. Cradle to grave government benefits. A lot of free stuff. Including pensions. Health care. College educations. And a lot of government jobs in ever expanding government bureaucracies. Where wise men in government made everything better for the people living in these nanny states. And armed with their new Keynesian economic policies there was nothing they couldn’t do. Except pay for their nanny states.
According to John Maynard Keynes raising Tax Rates reduces New Economic Activity
The problem with a nanny state is things change. People have fewer babies. Health care and medicines improve. Increasing lifespans. You put this together and you get an aging population. The death knell of a nanny state. For when those wise men in government set up all of those generous government benefits they assumed things would continue the way they were. People would continue to have the same amount of babies. And we would continue to die just about the time we retired. Giving us an expanding population of new workers entering the workforce. While fewer people left the workforce and quickly died. So the tax base would grow. And always be larger than those consuming those taxes. In other words, a Ponzi scheme.
But then change came. With the Sixties came birth control and abortion. And we all of a sudden started having fewer babies. While at the same time advances in medicine was increasing our lifespans. Which flipped the pyramid upside down. Fewer people were entering the workforce than were leaving it. And those leaving it were living a lot longer into retirement. Consuming record amounts of tax money. More than the tax base could provide. Leading to deficit spending. And growing national debt.
Now remember those two ways to increase spending in the economy? You either cut tax rates. Or the government borrows and spends. So if cutting tax rates will generate new economic activity (i.e., new spending in the economy) what will a tax increase do? It will decrease spending in the economy. And reduce new economic activity. Which caused a problem for these nanny states with aging populations. As the price tag on their nanny state benefits eventually grew greater than their tax revenue’s ability to pay for it. So they increased tax rates. Which reduced economic activity. And with less economic activity to tax their increase in tax rates actually decreased tax revenue. Forcing them to run greater deficits. Which added to their national debts. Increasing the interest they paid on their debt. Which left less money to pay for those generous benefits.
President Obama’s Non-Defense Spending caused a Huge Spike in the National Debt not seen since World War II
It’s a vicious cycle. And eventually you reach a tipping point. As debts grow larger some start to question the ability of a government to ever repay their debt. Making it risky to loan them any more money. Which forces these countries with huge debts to pay higher interest rates on their government bonds. Which leaves less money to pay for those generous benefits. While their populations continue to age. Taking you to that tipping point. Like many countries in the Eurozone who could no longer borrow money to pay for their nanny states. Who had to turn to the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund for emergency loans. Which did provide those emergency loans. Under the condition that they cut spending. Money in exchange for austerity. Something that just galls those Keynesian economists. For despite all of their financial woes coming from having too much debt they still believe these governments should spend their way out of their recessions. And never mind about the deficits. Or their burgeoning debts.
But these Keynesians are missing a very important and obvious point. The problem these nations have is due to their inability to borrow money. Which means they would NOT have a problem if they didn’t need to borrow money. So austerity will work. Because it will decrease the amount of money they need to borrow. Allowing their tax revenue to pay for their spending needs. Without excessive tax rates that reduce economic activity. Making the nanny state the source of all their problems. For had these nations never became social democracies in the first place they never would have had crushing debt levels that cause sovereign debt crises. But they did. And their populations aged. Making it a matter of time before their Ponzi schemes failed. Something no nation with a growing nanny state and an aging population can avoid. Even the United States. Who kept true to their limited government roots for about 100 years. Then came the progressives. The central bank. And Keynesian economics. Putting the Americans on the same path as the Europeans (see US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP).
With the end of the Revolutionary War they diligently paid down their war debt. Which was pretty much the entire federal debt then. As the federal government was as limited as it could get. Then came the War of 1812 and the debt grew. After the war it fell to virtually nothing. Then it soared to pay for the Civil War. Which changed the country. The country was bigger. Connected by a transcontinental railroad. And other internal improvements. Which prevented the debt from falling back down to pre-war levels. Then it shot up to pay for World War I. After WWI the Roaring Twenties replaced progressivism and quickly brought the debt down again. Then Herbert Hoover brought back progressivism and killed the Roaring Twenties. FDR turned a bad recession into the Great Depression. By following all of that Keynesian advice to spend the nation out of recession. From the man himself. Keynes. The massive deficit spending of the New Deal raised the debt higher than it was during World War I. Changing the country again. Introducing a state pension. Social Security. A Ponzi scheme that would struggle once the population started aging.
Then came World War II and the federal debt soared to its highest levels. After the war a long decline in the debt followed. At the end of that decline was the Vietnam War. And LBJ’s Great Society. Which arrested the fall in the debt. Its lowest point since the Great Depression. Which was about as large as the debt during the Civil War and World War I. Showing the growth in non-defense spending. Then came Reagan’s surge in defense spending to win the Cold War. Once the Americans won the Cold War the debt began to fall again. Until the Islamist terrorist attacks on 9/11. Halting the fall in the debt as the War on Terror replaced the Cold War. Then came the Great Recession. And President Obama. Whose non-defense spending caused a huge spike in the national debt. Taking it to a level not seen since World War II. When an entire world was at war. But this debt is not from defense spending. It’s from an expanded nanny state. As President Obama takes America into the direction of European socialism. And unsustainable spending. Which can end in only but one way. Austerity. Painful austerity. Not like the discomfort of the sequester cuts that only were cuts in the rate of future growth. But real cuts. Like in Greece.
Tags: aging population, austerity, bloated government, central bank, Cold War, cut tax rates, debt, defense spending, deficit, deficit spending, Economics, economy, European Socialism, federal debt, federal government, government benefits, Government jobs, Great Depression, Keynes, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, nanny state, Ponzi scheme, private sector economy, Progressives, progressivism, recession, Roaring Twenties, social democracies, socialism, spending, tax revenue, war debt, World War I
Before there was Money People Traded Things they made with their Human Capital
Which came first? Money? Or stuff to buy? Was there stuff in a store before someone walked in with money to buy it? Or without anyone having any money to buy stuff would a store owner stock his or her shelves with stuff no one could buy? It’s a regular chicken and egg question. Liberal Democrats would say money came first. Because they believe in Keynesian stimulus spending. Put more money into people’s hands and they will buy more stuff. Thus stimulating economic activity.
But if money was all that we needed to stimulate economic activity the government could just print money and hand it out to the people. Who will take that money and go to the stores to buy stuff. But here is where the illusion of money creating economic activity ends. If the government just printed money and gave it to the people no one would have to work. Which is everyone’s earnest desire. This is why people buy lotto tickets. To get money to spend without having to work anymore. But if no one worked anymore because they could get money from the government printing presses instead of getting it in a paycheck in exchange for work what would these people buy? If no one had to work anymore who would make the stuff we find on store shelves to buy? Of course no one would. So those store shelves would be empty. And with nothing to buy all the money in the world would be worthless.
So this isn’t a chicken and egg question. Stuff to buy came long before money appeared on the scene. Before money people bartered. They traded things for other things. Meaning that if you wanted something that you didn’t have you had to create something yourself to trade. This is barter. People with human capital (talent and ability) create something they are good at. They create more than they need. And take their surplus to meet other people to trade with to get those other things they want. Things other people made using their human capital.
Search Costs made the Barter System Costly and Inefficient
Money was a solution to a problem. As the economy got more complex with more things to trade it got more difficult to find people to trade with. If you made product A and wanted product B you had to find someone who made product B who wanted product A. Imagine you make vacuum cleaners. And you want a television. You go to market looking for people to trade with. Let’s say you find 3 people who make televisions. But none of them want a vacuum cleaner. So you would have to go to another market. And find other people who made televisions. Until you found one that wanted a vacuum cleaner.
This time spent trying to find someone to trade with is called search costs. Which made the barter system costly and inefficient. For all of that time spent looking for someone to trade with was time not spent making vacuum cleaners. Giving you less to trade with. Allowing you to trade for fewer things. One way to reduce search costs was to bring a third trader into the picture. Someone that wanted a vacuum cleaner but made smartphones. Not televisions. If a television maker wanted a smartphone you could trade a vacuum cleaner for a smartphone. Then trade the smartphone for a television. Making barter a little more efficient. By reducing search costs. But it could still be very difficult to find three people to trade with.
This is where money comes in. It serves as that third trader. You would simply trade your vacuum cleaner for money. Then trade your money for that television. Greatly simplifying trade. By removing half of the trade equation. All you had to do was to find what you wanted. And then trade your money for it. You didn’t have to worry about what the other person wanted. Because once they got your money they could go and trade it for whatever they wanted. Money makes trade easier. As long as it was something that could hold value. A handful of dirt was not good money because anyone could scoop it up from the ground. Gold, on the other hand, was very good money. Because it was very difficult to get gold out of the ground. Thus it was scarce. As well as being durable, divisible, fungible, etc.
People Today share their Every Thought on Social Media for Validation that they Matter
Based on this let me ask you another question. Does Keynesian stimulus spending end recessions? No. Because giving people money to spend allows them to spend that money without creating something of value first. And creating more money out of nothing makes money less scarce. And less valuable. Like picking up a scoop of dirt from the ground. You create too much money and people will return to the barter system. Because something they create with their human capital will have far more value than a continuously devalued dollar. Best of all, in a barter system there can be no Keynesian stimulus spending. Because there is no money. And no inflation. Making Keynesian stimulus spending impossible. For there will only be people creating things with their human capital to trade with other people doing the same.
Those in government, though, don’t give up their Keynesian ways. For they like spending money. And being able to create it out of nothing allows them to spend a lot. Which gives them a lot of power. By getting people dependent on government benefits. For once they are they keep voting for those who promise to give more. And for those who promise not to reduce their current level of benefits. Allowing a lot of people to withdraw from half of the economic equation. Instead of using their human capital to bring value to market to trade for other value they let their human capital wither away. Giving them little reason to get out of bed in the morning. For when it comes down to it, people want to have a purpose. They want to matter. Which is why people today share their every thought on social media. For validation that they matter. For others to acknowledge that what they think and say is smart, funny, witty, insightful.
Wild animals are beautiful creatures. We are attracted to them. And would like to approach them in the wild. To gain their trust. We sometimes feed them because we want to help them. Because life in the wild is no picnic. It’s hard. Brutal. And these animals are just too cute to suffer. But the Left frowns on this. They don’t want us to feed the animals. For if we make them dependent on us they will never be able to return to a normal life in the wild. They won’t be able to live without those handouts. The Left understands this. Yet they have no problem with making people dependent on government benefits. Giving them no reason to get out of bed. Destroying the economy in the process. Making it ever harder for these benefit recipients to return to the workforce. Leaving them no purpose in life. Save one. To vote Democrat.
Tags: barter, barter system, benefits, government benefits, handouts, human capital, Keynesian, Keynesian stimulus spending, money, search costs, stimulate economic activity, stimulus spending, trade, value
Wealth Redistribution requires High Taxes to get the Wealth from those who Create It which reduces Economic Activity
President Obama’s reelection has left the nation bitterly divided. President Obama won only 50% of the popular vote. Down from 53% in 2008. So the president has become less popular with the American people. No surprise, really, with one of the worst economic recoveries in history. Despite the trillions in new spending to stimulate economic activity. Which didn’t stimulate economic activity. People concerned about this anemic economy are in the other 50%. Those who didn’t vote for keeping Obamacare law. Those who didn’t vote for a massive increase in regulatory powers over the private sector economy. Those who didn’t vote to raise taxes. Those who didn’t vote for continued record deficits.
With every contentious election some people will say they will move out of the country if their candidate loses. Few do. Although some rich people are doing that now. As they feel they have a bulls-eye on their back. With the whole Occupy Wall Street thing. The 99% against the 1%. The clarion call to get the wealthy to pay their fare share. Even though the top 10% income earners are already paying some 70% of all income taxes. So no doubt the wealthy are concerned. Wondering where this will all end. Higher income tax rates? A higher capital gains tax? A wealth tax? Confiscation of all earnings over a ‘fair’ amount? Who knows? The sad thing is that these things don’t really seem farfetched. For there is an angry mob out there. Stirred up by those on the far Left. Who is telling them that the only reason why they don’t have everything they want in life is because these rich people have taken it away from them. And that these oppressed should rise up and demand egalitarianism. Wealth redistribution. From those according to ability to those according to need. Which they are. Because it’s only fair.
Of course wealth redistribution requires high taxes to get the wealth from those who create it. Higher taxes, though, are a drag on the economy. And leads to higher unemployment. So it’s just not the wealthy worried about where this advance of liberal, anti-business policies will end. Up to 50% of the population voted in favor of the wealth creators creating wealth. And jobs. Something most of the people want. As already high unemployment will only get worse with another 4 years of anti-business policies. As well as leading this country closer to a European-style social democracy. That economic system favored by European countries currently wallowing in a sovereign debt crisis that appears to have no end.
If the Nation broke down into Two Confederacies Steve Jobs would probably have moved to Conservative America
So people are concerned about the direction the country is going. So concerned that there are actually secessionist movements popping up across the nation. Where people are signing petitions to advance the secession of their state from the union. For the growth of federal power has far exceeded the limits envisioned by the Founding Fathers. And the federal government is only going to get bigger. European big. So big that even Alexander Hamilton would have joined his sworn enemy, Thomas Jefferson, in opposing this federal power grab. For Jefferson’s greatest fear appears to be coming true. The federal government has reduced the states to little more than federal districts of a consolidated federal nation. Where all power is consolidating in Washington. In the hands of a few people. Who rule over the masses. Much like a monarchy. The kind the Founding Fathers fought against to win their independence. Something this other 50% understands. Which is helping fuel these secessionist movements.
So people in some states with a historical understanding of our Founding are concerned. And they’re signing petitions for secession. While the Left mocks them as whiny sore losers. When they threaten to leave the union Jon Stewart on the Daily Show mocked them with a line from Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory: Stop, don’t, come back. That Gene Wilder delivered in a tone of voice that basically said, “Go and good riddance.” Much to the delight of the Daily Show audience. Not fully understanding what that would mean. For it wouldn’t just mean that they would get a country of free health care, birth control, abortion, legal marijuana, gay marriage, open borders, etc. The Liberal utopian dream. No, succession would probably result in regional confederacies. The Northeast, the Midwest and the West Coast would probably join together in a liberal confederacy (Liberal America) where they pass all their liberal policies. While the remaining states would probably join together in a conservative confederacy (Conservative America). Which would pose a great problem for the Liberal America. How? In a word, egalitarianism.
Business owners who oppose excessive regulations and taxes would probably pack up shop and move to Conservative America. If they weren’t there already. So you would have a net movement of businesses, and jobs, from Liberal America to Conservative America. Where government policies are less anti-business. Even the liberals would admit this would happen. As they blame business for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries to escape the high cost of regulatory policies and taxes. So businesses will move. Leaving a reduced tax base behind. Where fewer workers would be paying all those taxes to give everyone all of those free government benefits. And the best and brightest of our entrepreneurs would head to Conservative America, too. For they will go where it is easier to realize their dream. If the nation broke apart into these two confederacies it would be highly probably that if he were alive Steve Jobs would move to Conservative America. Just as he outsourced his manufacturing to more business-friendly China. Don’t think this would happen? Well, it would. Because it has always happened in the past.
If America divides into Two Confederacies People will flee the Liberal Paradise for Jobs in Conservative America
At the end of World War II the German capital, Berlin, lay in Soviet occupied Germany. What became East Germany. Berlin, however, was occupied by the Soviets, the French, the British and the Americans. Giving those living in Berlin access to the West. As long as they got to the French, British or American sectors. Which became a real sore spot for the Soviet Union. Because East Berlin was a communist paradise. Located in East Germany. Also a communist paradise. The height of egalitarianism where the state provided everything for the people. It was everything the American Left wanted. But nothing those living there wanted. East Germans headed to Berlin en masse to escape to the West. Especially the best and brightest. It was a brain drain of the East. So the Soviets did the only thing they could do. They built the Berlin Wall. To prevent their people from escaping their Communist paradise.
West Berlin bounced back after the war quickly. Becoming a rich and exciting city to live in. Because they had free market capitalism. Providing a business-friendly environment. That created jobs. While across the Berlin Wall people were stuck in time. In a dark and dreary existence. Where they waited in line for their basic needs. Often hungry. And cold. With nothing to look forward to. For the government didn’t allow anyone to leave their paradise. Why? Because the few who did rarely went back. So they worked. And sat at home. Dreaming of how to get past that wall. To freedom. And a better life.
If America divides into two confederacies people will flee the Liberal paradise. For jobs in Conservative America. Leaving Liberal America with a reduced tax base. Making it harder to pay for all of those government benefits. As the benefit-consumers will flock to Liberal America for all that free stuff. But the people who pay for all of that free stuff will be going the other way. So fewer people will be paying for more stuff. Which, of course, will make it impossible to provide all of that free stuff. Unless Liberal America also builds walls to keep their people from fleeing their utopia. Keeping the wealth creators on their side of the wall. So they can tax them. To pay for their Liberal paradise. Which will have a close resemblance to East Berlin. So the liberals should be careful what they wish for. For if these states secede life will get worse for those dependent on government benefits. How worse? Behind the Iron Curtain worse.
Tags: anti-business policies, Berlin, Berlin Wall, communist paradise, conservative, conservative America, East Berlin, East Germany, economic activity, Egalitarianism, free stuff, Germany, government benefits, high taxes, high unemployment, jobs, liberal, Liberal America, Liberal paradise, liberal policies, President Obama, raise taxes, rich people, secession, secessionist movements, Soviet, Soviet Union, tax base, tax rates, taxes, wealth redistribution, wealthy
(Originally published March 20, 2012)
Tax Cuts and the Small Government Policies of Harding and Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties
Keynesians blame the long duration of the Great Depression (1929-1939) on the government clinging to the gold standard. Even renowned monetarist economist Milton Friedman agrees. Though that’s about the only agreement between Keynesians and Friedman. Their arguments are that the US could have reduced the length and severity of the Great Depression if they had only abandoned the gold standard. And adopted Keynesian policies. Deficit spending. Just like they did in the Seventies. The decade where we had both high unemployment and high inflation. Stagflation. Something that’s not supposed to happen under Keynesian economics. So when it did they blamed the oil shocks of the Seventies. Not their orgy of spending. Or their high taxes. And they feel the same way about the Great Depression.
Funny. How one price shock (oil) can devastate all businesses in the US economy. So much so that it stalled job creation. And caused high unemployment. Despite the government printing and spending money to create jobs. And to provide government benefits so recipients could use those benefits to stimulate economic activity. All of that government spending failed to pull the country out of one bad recession. Because of that one price shock on the cost of doing business. Yet no one talks about the all out assault on business starting in the Hoover administration that continued and expanded through the Roosevelt administration.
Herbert Hoover may have been a Republican. But he was no conservative. He was a big government progressive. And believed that the federal government should interfere into the free market. To make things better. Unlike Warren Harding. And Calvin Coolidge. Who believed in a small government, hands-off policy when it came to the economy. They passed tax cuts. Following the advice of their treasury secretary. Andrew Mellon. Which gave business confidence of what the future would hold. So they invested. Expanded production. And created jobs. It was these small government policies that gave us the Roaring Twenties. An economic boom that electrified and modernized the world. With real economic growth.
If an Oil Shock can prevent Businesses from Responding to Keynesian Policies then so can FDR’s all out War on Business
The Roaring Twenties was a great time to live if you wanted a job. And wanted to live in the modern era. Electric power was spreading across the country. People had electric appliances in their homes. Radios. They went to the movies. Drove cars. Flew in airplanes. The Roaring Twenties was a giant leap forward in the standard of living. Factories with electric power driving electric motors increased productivity. And reduced air pollution as they replaced coal-fired steam boilers that up to then powered the Industrial Revolution. This modernization even made it to the farm. Farmers borrowed heavily to mechanize their farms. Allowing them to grow more food than ever. Bumper crops caused farm prices to fall. Good for consumers. But not those farmers who borrowed heavily.
Enter Herbert Hoover. Who wanted to use the power of government to help the farmers. By forcing Americans to pay higher food prices. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. Thinking that a boom in the stock market was from speculation and not the real economic growth of the Twenties. So they contracted the money supply. Cooling that real economic growth. And making it very hard to borrow money. Causing farmers to default on their loans. Small rural banks that loaned to these farmers failed. These bank failures spread to other banks. Weakening the banking system. Then came the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Passed in 1930. But it was causing business uncertainty as early as 1928. As the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was going to increase tariffs on just about everything by 30%. Basically adding a 30% tax on the cost of doing business. That the businesses would, of course, pass on to consumers. By raising prices. Because consumers weren’t getting a corresponding 30% pay hike they, of course, could not buy as much after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Putting a big cramp in sales revenue. Perhaps even starting an international trade war. Further cramping sales. Something investors no doubt took notice of. Seeing that real economic growth would soon come to a screeching halt. And when the bill moved through committees in the autumn of 1929 the die was cast. Investors began the massive selloff on Wall Street. The Stock Market Crash of 1929. The so-called starting point of the Great Depression. Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became law. And the trade war began. As anticipated.
Of course, the Keynesians ignore this lead up to the Great Depression. This massive government intrusion into the free market. And the next president would build on this intrusion into the free market. Ignoring the success of the small-government and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge. As well as ignoring the big-government free-market-intrusion failures of Herbert Hoover. The New Deal programs of FDR were going to explode government spending to heights never before seen in peace time. Causing uncertainty like never seen before in the business community. It was an all out assault on business. Taxes and regulation that increased the cost of business. And massive government spending for new benefits and make-work programs. All paid for by the people who normally create jobs. Which there wasn’t a lot of during the great Depression. Thanks to programs like Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Glass–Steagall Act, Securities Act of 1933, Civil Works Administration, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Act, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Surplus Commodities Program, Fair Labor Standards Act, Rural Electrification Administration, Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, etc. Oil shocks of the Seventies? If an oil shock can prevent businesses from responding to Keynesian policies then an all out war on business in the Thirties could do the same. And worse. Far, far worse. Which is why the Great Depression lasted 10 years. Because the government turned what would have been a normal recession into a world-wide calamity. By trying to interfere with market forces.
Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs
The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.1%. In 1933 it was 24.9%. It stayed above 20% until 1936. Where it fell as low as 14.3% in 1937. It then went to 19.0%, 17.2% and 14.6% in the next three years. These numbers stayed horrible throughout the Thirties because the government wouldn’t stop meddling. Or spending money. None of the New Deal programs had a significant effect on unemployment. The New Deal failed to fix the economy the way the New Dealers said it would. Despite the massive price tag. So much for super smart government bureaucrats.
What finally pulled us out of the Great Depression? Adolf Hitler’s conquering of France in 1940. When American industry received great orders for real economic growth. From foreign countries. To build the war material they needed to fight Adolf Hitler. And the New Deal programs be damned. There was no time for any more of that nonsense. So during World War II businesses had a little less uncertainty. And a backlog of orders. All the incentive they needed to ramp up American industry. To make it hum like it once did under Harding and Coolidge. And they won World War II. For there was no way Adolf Hitler could match that economic output. Which made all the difference on the battlefield.
Still there are those who want to blame the gold standard for the Great Depression. And still support Keynesian policies to tax and spend. Even today. Even after 8 years of Ronald Reagan that proved the policies of Harding and Coolidge. We’re right back to those failed policies of the past. Massive government spending to stimulate economic activity. To pull us out of the Great Recession. And utterly failing. Where the unemployment rate struggles to get below 9%. The U-3 unemployment rate, that is. The rate that doesn’t count everyone who wants full time work. The rate that counts everyone, the U-6 unemployment rate, currently stands at 14.9%. Which is above the lowest unemployment rate during the Great Depression. Proving once again only real economic growth creates jobs. Not government programs. No matter how many trillions of dollars the government spends.
So much for super smart government bureaucrats.
Tags: Adolf Hitler, assault on business, benefits, Calvin Coolidge, Coolidge, cost of business, cost of doing business, economic activity, electric, farm, farm prices, farmers, FDR, free market, gold standard, government benefits, government spending, Great Depression, Great Recession, Harding, Herbert Hoover, high taxes, inflation, interfere with market forces, investors, job creation, Keynesian economics, Keynesian policies, Keynesians, New Deal, New Deal programs, oil shock, Progressive, real economic growth, recession, Roaring Twenties, small government, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, spending, stock market crash, tax cuts, trade war, uncertainty, unemployment, unemployment rate, Warren Harding, World War II
Jobs are Everything in an Economy
In the movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks it was a smart electrical engineer that saved the astronauts. Who explained that nothing they did would save the astronauts unless they figured out how to make the limited remaining power last until reentry. He said power was everything. And if it ran out before reentry the astronauts wouldn’t make it back alive. So heeding the advice of the smart electrical engineer they shut off all power to save what they had for reentry. Which meant they had no heat. And had to do some course corrections without the computer, requiring some complicated flying skills. Because they listened to the smart electrical engineer they had just enough power left to make it to reentry. And the astronauts made it back home alive.
An economy is similar in a way. For it, too, has something that is everything. And without it nothing else matters. Jobs. Jobs are everything in an economy. For they are the only way we can afford things. A house. A car. Food for our families. The heating bill. Fuel for our vehicles. Electronic devices. Our wireless/cable bills. Coffee at Starbucks. Clothing. Shoes. Pet food. Etc. None of these would be possible without a job. And a paycheck. Even our government benefits. Paid for with taxes. Deducted from our paychecks. Without people working none of these things would be possible. Because jobs are everything.
Money is not everything. We use money to make it easier to trade our skills with others to get the things we want. The more our skills are in demand by others the more we can trade them for other things. Which is why doctors have more things than high school kids working an entry level job. For there are a lot high school kids with entry-level job skills. But not so many people with doctor skills. So we pay doctors more. And high school kids less. Because doctors have more valuable skills than high school kids. And therefore can trade those skills for a lot of other things. So it’s not the money that matters. It’s the skills that they can trade for money that matters. Provided there is a job for them to fill. Once again coming back to jobs. Which are everything.
Birth Control and Abortion are the Pressing Social Issues that keep College Students Awake at Night with Worry
If the government printed money and paid everyone in the nation the equivalent of a doctor’s earnings it would not be the same thing. Because if everyone was paid the same no matter their skill level no one would go through the costs and hard work to become a doctor. Because working harder to acquire those skills wouldn’t provide them anything more than they can get for doing nothing. Giving people money for skills they don’t have diminishes the values of those skills. So people won’t work hard to get those skills. With less skillful people in the workplace there will be fewer people to provide the goods and services we want to buy. Leaving a lot of empty store shelves. And high prices because the things you want will be very hard to find.
This is why high school kids go to college. Take on a lot of student loan debt. To get the skills that will let them get the kind of jobs that will let them earn a lot of money. Granted, a lot of kids go to college for the fun. First time away from home. Binge drinking. Casual sex. Drugs. But they’re also there for the big payday a college education is supposed to give you. However, if the jobs aren’t there neither is that big paycheck. But that student loan debt is. Who’s to blame for the lack of jobs? In part these college kids. Who typically vote Democrat. The party that favors social justice, access to birth control and abortion, gay marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, and other pressing social issues that apparently keep college students awake at night with worry. So the Democrats pursue these issues to get the youth vote. Instead of making a favorable climate for business. So they can grow and create the jobs these college students want and are going to college for.
The problem is that these kids don’t understand the fundamentals of economics. They don’t understand business. Or the affect of taxes and regulatory compliance costs on a business’ bottom line. And they don’t seem to understand that they are not the only ones who want to make money. So do business owners. And if the tax burden and cost of regulatory compliance reduce the bottom line it makes it more difficult to meet payroll. And pay their other bills. So they will not grow their business. They will not create jobs. They will not offer pay raises and bonuses. And may even lay off people. When they do these things college kids call these business owners greedy. While their desire for a high-paying job does not make them greedy. Funny how subjective greed can be.
Liberals are Deep Critical Thinkers though they think about few things other than a Woman’s Reproductive Parts
In the current election cycle the Democrats don’t have a good record to run on. The current economic recovery, if we can call it a recovery, is about the worst on record. The biggest drag on the economy? Jobs. There are fewer of them today than when President Obama took office. And his policies haven’t help. Especially Obamacare. Which has caused business owners to slam the brakes on hiring. As they have no idea of the final total cost impact of Obamacare. So having destroyed job creation, the Democrats have turned to other tactics. Fear and loathing of Republican candidates. Such as the so-called war on women. Where the Democrats are warning women that if the Republicans win the upcoming 2012 election women will lose their birth control, their access to abortion, their cancer screening, their freedom. Life for women under the Republicans, the Democrats say, will be little different than living under the Taliban.
Of course, this isn’t true. For it didn’t happen under the 20 years of Republican rule of George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. But it doesn’t stop the Democrats or their celebrity endorsers from warning about the horrible things that will happen to women should the Republicans win. And they speak with such certain authority. For they know everything. At least, that’s what they think. It would be interesting, though, to ask them a few questions. So they can demonstrate their mastery of things economic. By explaining the stages of production. Why stimulus spending raises prices. To explain the business cycle. How recessions correct prices by wringing inflation out of them. How keeping interest rates artificially low creates asset bubbles. Like housing bubbles. And how bubbles create recessions when they burst. To explain what is Say’s Law. To name an economic school besides the Keynesian school. To explain the Keynesian school of economics. The number of taxes a business must calculate and pay with every payroll. How excessive government borrowing diverts investment capital from the job-creating private sector. Or how the growth in government spending cannot increase greater than the population growth rate.
As they don’t teach any of this in today’s public schools and most universities they probably won’t be able to explain any of these things. Yet liberals are absolutely sure they’re right and you’re wrong. Even though they can’t explain why. For they are smarter. Brighter. More progressive. Enlightened. And deep critical thinkers. Though they think about few things other than a woman’s reproductive parts. Even when the real unemployment rate (the U-6 number that counts everyone that can’t find a full-time job) currently stands at 14.7%. Which is serious. As jobs are everything. And sometimes you can’t have everything you want. Sometimes you must sacrifice. And put in place policies that are business friendly. Cutting back on the social spending. At least until businesses start creating jobs again. And the working tax base can once again support that social spending.
Tags: 2012 election, a woman's reproductive parts, abortion, birth control, bubbles, Business, college, Democrat, Economics, economy, entry level job, government benefits, greedy, inflation, job, job skills, jobs, jobs are everything, Keynesian, liberals, money, Obamacare, paycheck, prices, recessions, Republican, skill level, social issues, social justice, social spending, student loan debt, taxes, war on women
Week in Review
Life in Somalia has been exceptionally hard. Sadly, it’s a recurring theme in some African nations. Who are ruled more by the gun than the law. And during near constant warfare there has been little chance for the Rule of Law and capitalism to take root and flourish. To develop a middle class where people can go to work while their kids go to school. And then come home at the end of their day to share a family meal and pursue some family activities. Or simply watch television in the peace and comfort of their living rooms. Things we take for granted in nations under the Rule of Law and capitalism. Now there is another change of political leadership in Somalia. And people are returning home after years of exile. People have hope. Even if they have to skip meals to help make ends meet (see Somalis ‘free’ but have no food, water by SARA MOJTEHEDZADEH posted 10/13/2012 on The East African).
But as confidence marks a new era of political leadership in Somalia, experts are warning that over two million Somalis continue to survive on a knife edge.
According to a recent study by Oxfam, many regions of Somalia are confronting severe food and water shortfalls as a result of poor rains.
The survey of 1,800 households found that 72 per cent were worried about their food supply in coming months as a result of this year’s poor “Gu” rains — the season between April and June that supplies Somalia with the rainfall vital for its September harvest. Nearly half of those surveyed habitually skipped meals to make ends meet…
“Any further shocks without proper assistance could take Somalia back to previous conditions, but that’s very unlikely now due to weakening anti-government forces and as more and more areas come under the control of the current government,” said Tamara Nanitashvili, the acting head of FSNAU…
“Many of those who have been displaced or who lost everything during the famine and conflict and want to return will need to be assisted to resume their farming or herding. Greater security can help tremendously to achieve these things,” she said.
In America the Democrats have attacked Mitt Romney about his ‘47%’ remark. Saying that he believes nearly have the population are just lazy people living off of government benefits. (Which he didn’t mean. What he meant was that it was going to be virtually impossible to get people receiving government benefits to vote for the guy NOT promising to increase them. As once people receive some benefit they are not happy to lose it. As demonstrated throughout Europe with all of those austerity riots.) That he would cut these benefits. Hurting the people that need them most. While at the same time President Obama’s wife is leading a drive to fight childhood obesity. And attacking fat people in general. The mayor of New York City has restricted the size of sodas people can buy because we are too fat. Our health care costs are out of control because people are too fat. Yet we need more government benefits, not fewer. Because people would starve without them. Even though we have an obesity problem. Unlike the Somalis. Who have to skip meals to make ends meet.
So on the one hand we are too fat. While on the other we’re going to bed hungry. Which is what we call a paradox. Because both statements cannot be true. If we are too fat then we can’t be going to bed hungry. And if we’re going to bed hungry we can’t be too fat. If both statements cannot be true then the political left must be lying about one of them.
In Somalia there is no paradox. They’re going to bed hungry. Because they’re skipping meals to make ends meet. And because they are skipping meals they don’t have an obesity problem. Somalis know true poverty. And true hunger. They would probably love to have the chance to suffer hunger the way they do in America. For at least they could go to bed without the gnawing hunger in their stomachs.
Tags: capitalism, childhood obesity, fat people, going to bed hungry, government benefits, hunger, obesity, obesity problem, people are too fat, rule of law, skipped meals to make ends meet, Somalia, Somalis, we are too fat
« Previous Entries