The Japanese and the Chinese have more Powerful Computers than the U.S.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 5th, 2012

Week in Review

This is rather sad.  The country that developed computers into the powerful tools they are today is no longer dominating the field.  Sad.  For when we passed on the torch of manufacturing giant to others we still were the brains behind the things being manufactured.  Research and development.  Invention and innovation.  Engineering and the entrepreneurial spirit.  That great human capital that made the United States the lone superpower today has always continued to excel in America.  Could it be that the fundamental structure of the United States has changed so much that we have diminished this shining light of human capital?   Perhaps (see Ten million billion and counting posted 1/31/2012 on The Economist).

Every November and June, an independent organisation re-evaluates the 500 most powerful known machines in the world and ranks them at Top500.org. In recent years China and Japan nabbed most of the top five spots in a field where America once hogged the top ten…

This year, however, America is limbering up for a comeback. Three of its national labs are being spruced up. Argonne National Laboratory’s IBM Blue Gene/Q supercomputer, christened Mira, will go online at Dr Papka’s outfit sometime in the second half of 2012…

Much of the crunching will be scientific in nature. Mira’s processing muscle will enable researchers to model exploding stars, turbulent airflow over aircraft wings and wind-turbine blades, or new materials to make better batteries, among others.

Interestingly, among the scientific uses of Mira listed one is conspicuous by its absence.  Climate modeling.  To better understand global warming.  And to understand whether the sun has a greater effect on climate (as most real scientists believe).  Or if man is the dominate driving factor (as all global warming ‘scientists’ funded by governments with a vested interest in proving that man is the driving factor so they can regulate and tax emissions and fill government coffers with more money they can spend believe).  Was this excluded because they have already settled this ‘science’ as government wanted it settled?  Or is this ‘science’ not worthy of time on such a valuable computing resource?  Or is the whole field so inconsequential that it just didn’t occur to the author to include it in a list?

Interesting because we do all of those other things already.  This more powerful computer will only let us do those things better.  And as complex as climate is you’d think they’d want to model that better.  Unless they’re worried about what better modeling would tell them.  That the earth is an incredible self-correcting ecosystem regardless of what happens on it.  Whether it be volcanoes spewing so much ash into the atmosphere that it lowers global temperatures.  Or the powerful effects of solar activity that have advanced and receded the glaciers long before man made any carbon on the planet.  Glaciers that have moved farther than they did at any time since man began spewing carbon into the atmosphere.

Perhaps this growth of government ever deeper into our economy, taxing and regulating technological achievement, has stifled our human capital.  As governments pours funding and resources into pseudoscience to combat something that doesn’t even exist.  Man-made global warming.  Perhaps this is the reason that the U.S. doesn’t dominate the top ten of the most powerful machines anymore.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Brazil is Rich in Resources but Beset with Poverty Despite its Social Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 18th, 2011

Week in Review

The Portuguese colonized Brazil.  Which is why Portuguese is one of the top ten most spoken languages in the world.  Because there are a great many Brazilians speaking Portuguese.  So there is a strong bond between Brazil and Europe.  Home of tiny little Portugal (and a wonderful dessert wine.  Port).  Perhaps a little too strong (see Brazil state struggles with poverty despite rich natural resources posted 12/12/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

Brazil’s huge northern state of Pará is about three times the size of California, home to much of the Amazon rain forest and is the second-largest producer of the nation’s most important export, iron ore.

But poverty levels are well above the national average…

Even opponents of the bill, however, recognized the predicament, and it’s one that is repeated in parts of Peru, Colombia and elsewhere in South America: the lack of central government representation for states that are resource-rich (be it mining, gas or other commodities) but poverty-stricken.

“We can’t accept that in this country, natural resources benefit companies, but not its people,” said Simão Jatene, governor of Pará. “The Brazilian fiscal system is extremely perverse with respect to Pará…”

In Brazil, the last decade of economic growth has brought tens of millions of Brazilians out of poverty, powered by commodities exports, consumer credit growth and social spending. But the country still remains extremely unequal, across class and geographical lines. Some parts of the southeastern cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have a higher gross domestic product per capita than rich European countries, while in remote parts of Pará, residents who are struck ill must brave a five-day boat ride to the nearest hospital for treatment, O Globo reported.

The Amazon rain forest, eh?  Perhaps part of the problem is the environmentalists trying to save the rain forest.  Preventing any development there.  Condemning these people to a life of poverty.  Because it is usually a trade off.  Save the planet.  Or save man.  Rarely can you do both.  At least the way the environmentalists see it.  Who won’t be happy until they take civilization back to the days of Neanderthal.  And you know there are those out there who would bitch about Neanderthal’s use of tools changing his environment, too.  Which is the greatest crime man can make.  Changing his environment.

The lack of central government is the problem?  Funny.  The lack of central government didn’t stop the British and the Industrial Revolution they kicked off.  And the lack of central government didn’t appear to be a problem for Andrew Carnegie as he created a steel revolution in the United States.  Which is far bigger than California.  Yet the economy of the country grew so great it topped the mighty British Empire from the top spot.  One country with a limited central government.  Besting another country with a limited central government.

The problem the Brazilians have is spelled out in this article.  Their economy has been driven by the export of commodity materials.  Exporting raw materials?!?  This isn’t capitalism.  This is mercantilism.  And why only some Brazilians are living the good life.  They need to ignite an engine of economic exchange within Brazil.  Use those raw materials in domestic industries.  Build factories to transform them into consumer goods that Brazilians will buy with their factory wages.  Like the Americans did in the 19th century.  And we did that with less central government than we have today.  And I’m guessing that’s the only problem Brazil has.  Too much government.

Any country has the human capital to do what the Americans and the British did.  They just need the key to unlock that capital.  And the key to that lock is called free market capitalism.  Brazil is already far down this road.  They just need to let the rest of their country play catch-up.  And they’ve got to back off on the social spending.  Or else they’ll end up like Europe and their Eurozone.  Fighting for their life.  From excessive social spending.  If European capitalists had any advice for the Brazilians it would be this; don’t do it.  Don’t follow them down the Road to Serfdom.  Be free.  Stay free.  And let capitalism be free.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Free Labor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 5th, 2011

Economics 101

Unlike Slaves Paid-Laborers Worked, Went Home and Fed & Housed their Own Families

Agriculture advances gave us food surpluses.  Food surpluses gave us a division of labor.  The division of labor gave us trade.  Money made that trade more efficient.  Religion and the Rule of Law allowed great gatherings of people to live and work together in urban settings.  Free trade let us maximize this economic output and elevated our standard of living.  And to sustain this economic growth we needed something else.  Free labor.

Slavery as an economic model has serious defects.  For one the labor is not free.  People are restrained against their will.  And only work to minimize their pain and suffering.  They do not think or innovate.  Their human capital is wasted.  Because no one voluntarily thinks and innovates to make a better life for others.  Especially if it  won’t improve their own life.  A slave, then, has little incentive to think or innovate.  Their incentive is to follow orders.  Because that was the proven way to minimize their pain and suffering.

Buying human beings is also less efficient than renting them.  Not everyone in a slave family was in their working prime.  The elderly couldn’t work the fields anymore.  Neither could the infant children.  But they all needed room and board.  Unlike a paid laborer.  Who you paid only for the hours they worked.  You didn’t feed or house them.  They worked and went home.  And fed and housed their own families. This is why George Washington wanted to sell his slaves and replace them with paid laborers.  To increase his profits.  But he found people were only interested in buying slaves in their working prime.  He could sell some.  But not all of them.  Which meant breaking up slave families.  Something he couldn’t do.  So he kept his slaves.  Settled for lower profits.  And kept the slave families together.

The Slave-Economy in the New World was a Step Backward toward Old World Aristocracy

Not everyone was as kind as Washington.  Some people had no problem breaking up families.  Or abusing their slaves.  But they all had to exercise restraint.  Because a maimed or a dead slave couldn’t work.  A problem for slave owners because they bought their slaves.  Often borrowing money for the purchase.  So it was costly to replace them.  As well as to train them.  One skilled in picking cotton may not readily take to harvesting and drying tobacco.  Whereas you could simply advertise for a hired hand who was skilled in harvesting and drying tobacco if you used free labor.

Free labor added to the economy.  Because they had earnings for economic exchange.  Slaves didn’t.  The slave owner provided their room and board.  So they were not only enslaved they were also dependent on others for everything free laborers bought with their earnings.  Economic exchanges in a slave economy, then, were limited to the wealthy landowners.  Making it a system much like European feudalism or Russian serfdom.  Only instead of peasants or serfs there were slaves.  Who were less free.  And even poorer.

Thus the slave-economy in the New World was a step backward toward Old World aristocracy.  (And a little beyond it.)  Where there were a few rich and a lot of poor.  Agricultural reform came with the help of the Black Death.  When the balance of power tipped from the landed aristocracy to the much thinned out labor force.  Who could then demand wages and better conditions.  And then came capitalism.  For those new wage-earners had money for economic exchanges.  Which they made.  Thus producing a prosperous middle class.  Which took root in the New World.  At least, in the parts of the New World that used free labor.

Our Capacity to Think is the Key to Unlocking our Human Capital, Economic Growth and the Quality of Life

The great problem of slavery (other than the moral one) is that it excluded a great part of the population from the economy.  Slavery excluded millions of people from making economic exchanges.  And millions who might have thought and created didn’t.  Their human capital was wasted.  Setting economic development back.  As well as the quality of life.

In a modern capitalistic economy there must be no slavery.  Or dependency.  Because those enslaved or dependent do not create.  Or innovate.  They just exist.  And do not maximize the gift of being human.  Our capacity to think.  Which is the key to unlocking our human capital.  Economic growth.  And the quality of life.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Free Trade

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 28th, 2011

Economics 101

When People can Buy and Sell as they Please without Outside Interference we call it Free Trade

Agriculture advances gave us food surpluses.  Food surpluses gave us a division of labor.  The division of labor gave us trade.  Money made that trade more efficient.  Religion and the Rule of Law allowed great gatherings of people to live and work together in urban settings.  Thus unleashing human capital.  And creating a great diversity in economic output.  Because all these people with spare time could create new things.  That other people discovered.  And wanted.

The Rule of Law gave us property rights.  And it’s because of property rights that people take chances.  Then.  And now.  To create things.  Invest their labor and capital.  Because they own what they create.  And are free to trade these products of their own labor and capital.  Freely.  With whom they want to.  At the value of exchange they agree to.  Encouraging others to do the same.  So they, too, can enjoy the products of their own labor and capital.

When people can buy and sell as they please without outside interference we call it free trade.  Outside interference can include many things.  But mostly it means government interfering with market forces.  Such as taxing things differently.  Placing tariffs or quotas on imported goods.  Subsidies to certain domestic manufacturers.  Etc.  All things that complicate the exchange of goods and services.  Because you have to consider all of these other things in addition to the goods and services you wish to exchange.  Complicating the economic exchange.  Making it more costly.  Less free.  And simply less of it.

The Overregulation of a Free Market Creates a Black Market

The less free and more complicated trade gets something happens.  The overregulation of a free market creates a secondary market.  A black market.  Where economic exchanges occur free from government interference.   The black market then becomes the free market alternative to the overregulated ‘government’ market.

The former Soviet Union is a good example.  Government bureaucrats completely controlled the market.  They set the prices.  And allocated the resources.  Poorly, I might add.  And the result?  Stores full of items no one wanted to buy.  Long lines at stores selling the basic necessities of life (such as soap and toilet paper).  Where people waited to buy their allotted quota because there was so little available to sell.  And a thriving black market where you could buy the latest in Western fashion and electronics.  Which proved very handy in bribing government bureaucrats.  Because even they wanted what the Westerners traded freely.

Another good example are cigarettes.  Stores across certain state lines do very well selling cigarettes.  For these stores can sell cigarettes at steep discounts compared to those on the other side of the border.  Why?  Cigarette taxes.  And some cities and states really pile them on.  Making some people spend more money on gas as well as risking trouble with the law to get these more affordable cigarettes.  Often buying them in bulk.  And then smuggling them back home.

An Overly Regulated Market alters our Economic Decision Making, Resulting in Less Economic Activity

A free market lets us come together freely to buy and sell what we choose.  An overly regulated market alters our economic decision making.  Due to higher prices.  And regulatory costs.  A minimal amount may not affect our purchasing decisions.  Whereas an excessive amount pushes some outside the law.  Into the black market.  Back to a free market.  Which is what we all want.  To freely buy and sell what we choose.

The net effect on the economy?  The less free the market is the less economic activity there is.  Either due to higher prices.  Or higher regulatory costs.  Both of which leave us with less to spend on other economic exchanges.  And less motivation to commit labor and capital to create new things to trade.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Money

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 7th, 2011

Economics 101

The High Search Costs of the Barter System Hindered Trade

Agriculture advances gave us food surpluses.  Food surpluses gave us a division of labor.  The division of labor gave us trade.  And trade gave us an advanced civilization.  By allowing more specialists to live together in crowded urban settings.  Creating a rich surplus of goods for trade.  That people traded.  With other people.  Near.  And far.

As trade grew civilizations got better.  The division of labor grew larger.  And more complex.  Producing more things.  Soon there was a rich variety of goods to trade with for other goods.  From civilizations in distant lands.  Which made life more interesting.  And enjoyable.  During that brief time when you weren’t working.  Or trading.  Which was taking more and more time.  To find someone to trade with.  That had something you wanted.  And who wanted something you had.

This is the barter system.  Trading goods for goods.  Producers took their goods to other producers.  And asked, “What will you take in trade for that?”  Often the response was, “Nothing that you have.”  To which the trader replied, “Very well.  I shall keep looking.”  And sometimes would spend days, weeks and even months looking.  And that was time spent not making anything new.  This was the high search cost of the barter system.  And it hindered trade.  We needed something better.

Money made Trade more Efficient and Unleashed the Human Capital of the Middle Class

For civilization to advance further we had to make trade more efficient.  We had to reduce these search costs.  What we needed was a temporary storage of value.  Something we could trade our valuable goods for.  And then trade the value of our goods, held temporarily in this temporary storage of value, for something else of value later.  And we call this temporary storage of value money.

Money greatly simplified things.  Allowed a more complex economy.  A greater division of labor.  And it allowed wages.  Allowing more people to work on more narrow specialties.  These producers could then take their wages to market.  And buy what they needed.  Instead of spending days, weeks or even months traveling to find people to barter with.

Money made trade more efficient.  It allowed cities to grow in size.  And become even more advanced.  It unleashed the human capital of the middle class.  For they could spend more time creating and building new and better things to trade.  And this economic activity allowed more people to live together peacefully.  As producers produced.  And traded with other producers.  All made easier by money.  A temporary storage of value.

Money doesn’t Create or Produce, it just Temporarily Stores the Value of what we Create and Produce

Please note what came first here.  First there was trade.  Then there was money to make that trade more efficient.

At the heart of all economic activity is our human capital.  What we use to create and produce.  Money doesn’t create or produce.  It just stores the value of what we create and produce.  Which is why Keynesian economic stimulus doesn’t work.  Making money to give to people to spend simply does not create new economic activity.

Our skills create economic activity.  That ability to create things other people value.  And wish to trade for.  Because we are traders.  Not spenders.  We trade things of value.  And to trade things of value someone has to create them first.  If you just take things of value without offering something of value in trade it is not trade.  It’s plunder.  And little different from the uncivilized barbarians on the frontier of the civilized world.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Trade

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2011

Economics 101

People Traded the Things they Made to have Things they couldn’t Make

Agricultural advances gave us food surpluses.  Food surpluses gave us the division of labor.  And spare time.  For the first time everyone didn’t have to hunt or gather food.  They could do other things.  Think.  Experiment.  Innovate.  Create.  And they did.  Becoming specialists.  A middle class.  Artisans.  People who became very good at doing one thing.  So they kept doing that one thing.  Finding ways to improve that one thing.  And created surpluses of their own.  Potters made excess pottery.  Shoemakers made excess shoes.  Tanners made excess leather goods.  Metalworkers made excess metal goods.

Cities grew in the center of the sprawling farmland.  And it was in the cities where these artisans lived.  Where they honed their specialties.  And met.  With other specialists.  And with farmers.  To trade.  The potter would trade pottery for shoes.  The farmer would trade food for shoes and metal goods.  The tanner would trade leather goods for pottery, shoes and food.  And so on.  People traded the things they made.  To have things they couldn’t make.  Everyone was able to have more things.  Thanks to this trade.

This unleashed the vast human capital of the people.  Their cities.  And their civilization.  Cities on the coast fished.  Cities closer to the forest harvested wood.  Cities closer to the hills mined silver, gold and copper.  And coal.  And the cities traded their surpluses with other cities.  Metal workers and potters traded their goods for fuel for their forges and kilns.  Miners traded their ore and coal for grain and fish.  Either directly.  Or indirectly.  When other people traded their large surpluses with other people in other cities.  With the miners getting a portion of these large-scale trades for all their efforts to make those trades possible.

As Civilizations became more Complex they became more Dependent on Trade

All of this trading made cities grow.  And as a result the civilization they belonged to grew.  And became more advanced.  People ventured further.  Looking for other resources.  And met people from other civilizations.  Who had raw materials that were different and interesting.  As well as finished goods that were different and interesting.  And these civilizations traded with each other.

Civilizations established trade routes with each other.  Which connected civilizations with others in the unknown world.  Beyond the civilizations they knew.  Markets appeared on these trade routes.  Bringing the exotic from the furthest corners of the world to everyone.  As well as new ideas.  And innovation.  The civilized world grew more advanced.  More interdependent.  More peaceful.  And better.  There was more food.  More technology.  More goods and services.  And more leisure.  Giving rise to the arts.  And entertainment.

But it was not all good.  As cities grew they grew attractive to the uncivilized barbarians beyond the frontier.  Roving bands of hunters and gatherers.  Who were more partial to plunder than trade.  So a portion of their surpluses had to be set aside for city defenses.  The building of city walls.  Implements of wars.  And standing armies.  To defend their cities.  Their civilizations.  And their trade routes.  For as civilizations became more complex they became more dependent on trade.

Trade Improved the Quality of Life which is the Hallmark of an Advanced Civilization

Trade unleashed our human capital.  Because it drove innovation.  There was a big world out there.  Creating a lot of fascinating stuff.  And the only way to get it was to trade your fascinating stuff for it.  And when we did everyone won.  Life got better.  We learned new and interesting things.  That we used as building blocks for further innovation.  And further advancement.  Which led to a better quality of life.  The hallmark of an advanced civilization.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #41: “The want of unearned money is the root of most evil.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2010

Money is a Temporary Storage of Wealth that Makes Trade Efficient

People don’t want money.  They want what money can buy.  A dump truck full of money is useless when there is nothing to buy with it.  For money is nothing more than a temporary storage of wealth.

We make or do creative things.  Things or services that people want.  There is a world full of people making goods or providing services other people want.  Some people make cellular phones.  Some people make microwave ovens.  Others provide landscaping services.  And these are the things we want.  Not money.

Money is a tool.  We use it to make trading with each other easier.  People who make cellular phones don’t need to find someone who makes microwave ovens to trade with.  Instead, they receive money for the cellular phones they make.  And the microwave oven makers receive money for the microwaves they make.  Then the cellular phone makers and microwave oven makers can take that money and trade it for what they want.

Our Human Capital Determines the Size of our Paycheck

We call the skills we accrue over time that lets us make or do things that other people want ‘human capital’.  People that have human capital have jobs.  Employers hire them because they have valuable human capital. 

Some people have so much human capital that they start a business.  They’re very good at bringing together an idea, people and resources to make valuable things or services that other people want to buy.

People with human capital are traders.  Just like in ancient Mesopotamia.  Nothing has changed.  Except that we trade more efficiently these days because of money.

It’s Easier to Steal Money than Televisions and Mansions

Not everyone traded.  Some people stole.  Some fought.  When peoples came into contact with each other, they often fought each other.  And the winner took the spoils.

Not much has changed today.  There are people who still steal.  And they are peoples who still conquer.  The only difference really is the efficiency of some theft.  Again, this is due to money.  It is more difficult to steal a 42″ plasma television than it is to steal $750 (which they can use to buy a 42″ plasma television). 

Likewise, it is more difficult for a politician to steal a million dollar mansion than it is to steal money.  Either as bribes from some special interest.  Or from taxpayers.

Unearned – Evil; Earned – Good

Those who steal typically have little human capital.  But because they still want those nice things they steal money.  The problem with theft, though, is that stolen money is transitory.  If you have human capital, you get a recurring paycheck.  Once you spend stolen money, it’s gone.  And you have to steal again.

This want of unearned money is the root of most evil.

People who earn their money with their human capital improve the lives of others.  The more they buy, the more others sell.  And the more jobs these others create.  And these jobs allow other people to use their human capital to buy other things.  Or even make charitable donations.

This want of earned money is the root of most good.

Rockefeller and Carnegie Made and Gave Away Fortunes

John D. Rockefeller made a fortune with Standard Oil.  He was ruthlessly efficient.  No one could refine, transport and sell petroleum products cheaper than he could.  People benefitted from affordable petroleum products.  And after he retired, he gave away vast portions of his wealth to charitable causes.

Andrew Carnegie made a fortune from steel.  Like Rockefeller, he was efficient.  No one could produce quality steel at a lower price than he could.  His steel built the skyscrapers and railroads of America.  He made a fortune.  And gave most of it away to charitable causes.

Most of the politicians that make it to Washington leave Washington as millionaires.  They sell themselves to special interests.  Raise our taxes so they can buy political favor.  And their policies are notorious for the unintended consequences that destroy (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) destroyed black families). 

High Taxes and Lottery Tickets Punish the Poor

The federal government has created such an entitlement mentality that some people can’t survive without government assistance.  To fund their destructive policies, they’ve raised taxes on the wealthy.  And impoverished the poor.

With taxes so high, charitable contributions have declined.  Sin taxes (on cigarettes and liquor) have hit the poor especially hard (as they have less disposable income).  Which makes the poor more dependent on government.

But the ultimate insult to the poor has got to be the lottery.  The government entices the poor with illusions of getting rich quick.  And this want of unearned money causes the poor to spend large chunks of their small paychecks or government benefits (that they can’t afford) on lotto tickets.  Hoping to win the big one.  With some of the worse odds in the history of gambling.  (People have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than winning the lotto.  And few people believe that they will ever be hit by lightning.  But they’ll keep buying those lotto tickets.)

But whether a thief, a politician or the poor, the end result is the same.  The want of unearned money makes people make bad choices.  And people suffer because of those choices.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #41: “The want of unearned money is the root of most evil.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2010

Survival of the Fittest is not a Pleasant Way to Live

Whoever said that ‘money is the root of all evil’ got it wrong.  Money gives us peace.  It gives us safe societies to live in.  It’s money that has civilized us.  Differentiated us from the animals. 

Which kingdom is crueler to live in?  The animal kingdom?  Or the human kingdom?  Most will say the human kingdom.  They will point to the Nazis and World War II.  The death camps.  The horrors of the Eastern Front as the Soviets and the Germans waged perhaps the cruelest war of attrition known to history.  And then say check and mate.  Man is worse than animals when it comes to acts of cruelty.  As World War II so clearly demonstrates.

Well, yes, World War II is probably the greatest tragedy man has ever perpetrated against his fellow man.  But a lot of those who suffered and perished were doing so to end the tyranny of fanatical state socialism (Italy’s Fascists, Germany’s National Socialists and Japan’s militarists).  It was a struggle of good versus evil.  Where the evil were behaving like animals.  Using military power, ideology and cruelty in a pure Darwinian survival of the fittest.

Welcome to the Animal Kingdom where the Lame and Young are Eaten

Yeah, you didn’t see that coming, did you?  Only man sacrifices for the good of others.  Animals don’t do that.  That’s why they have so many babies.  Because animals prey on the most defenseless.  They don’t help them.  Babies are easy food.  So they have a lot of babies because so few make it to adulthood.  Because others eat them. 

When a soldier falls in combat, others will risk their own life to drag him to safety.  So many do this.  And the few we see we recognize for this extraordinary act of bravery that is above and beyond the call of duty.

Our nation recently awarded Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta the Medal of Honor.  Our highest decoration.  While serving in Afghanistan.  He is the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War.  This is what men do.  Perform selfless acts of bravery to help others.  And people like Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta make the world a better place.

You know what a hurt animal is?  Easier food.  While the other animals run away, predators eat the slower and lame.  Another reason why animals have so many babies.  They’re still food as they grow up.  And they never stop being food.  This is the animal kingdom.

We Used our Brains more than our Brawn

Say what you want about the cruelty of man, but we don’t eat our babies.  Or our lame.  Most of us live out of the elements.  Many in a warm and cozy house.  The necessities of life come rather easy for most.  Whereas lots of animals perish from the lack of food and water, in America even the poor are obese.

So how did this happen?  How did life get so easy for man compared to the animals?  Yes, our opposable thumbs helped.  And our big brains.  But even with these we were still hunters and gatherers.  And when you hunt and gather, you need a lot of land to hunt and gather on.  Because food just isn’t that plentiful in convenient small areas.  So they traveled.  And came into contact with other hunter and gatherers.  Who they then fought for the limited food supply to survive.

This all changed when we used our brains more than our brawn.  Instead of gathering food, we farmed.  Instead of hunting, we raised cows, pigs, chickens, etc.  As our food supply became steadier, we could do other things besides tending to our food supply.  We thought.  We innovated.  We improved.  We created.

The Barter System was Good but Inefficient

Of course, we were able to do these other things why?  Because not everyone had to be farmers.  But these people still needed food.  So what did they do to get food?  Steal it at every opportunity like in the animal kingdom? 

No.  In the beginning, they traded for food.  A tool maker traded his tools to a farmer for some of his food.  We call this kind of trading the barter system.  It’s an improvement over stealing what you want but it has its problems.  What if the tool maker only makes one kind of tool?  And the farmer already has three?

This is the big downfall of the barter system.  Searching for someone that has something you want AND wants what you have.  The longer it took to find these people to trade with the more time you spent searching than making something.  These ‘search costs’ became costly and made barter inefficient. 

If only we could find something that would make this trading process more efficient.  Something that would allow me to spend less time searching and more time making things.  Something that could temporarily hold value that I can trade for.  That I then could trade with other people for what I wanted.

Money Made Trade Efficient.  And Allowed us to Live Together in Peace and Harmony

We call that ‘something’ money.  And it has exploded the efficiency of trade.  It made it very easy to buy the things you wanted by using the money you made selling the things you made.  Markets where all this buying and selling took place became cities.  Living standards increased.  We were able to live in peace and harmony with each other like never before.

It is our creativity and the things we make or do that allowed this to happen.  Money just made this ‘human capital’ more efficient.  And the more money we accumulated from our human capital, the better everyone lived.  Because we produced more things that people wanted.

But there are those without this human capital.  The lazy.  The shiftless.  Criminals.  Lawyers.  And politicians.  They don’t create anything.  They just want to profit from the human capital of others.  To steal, if you will.  And it is this want of unearned money that is the root of most evil.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2010

THOMAS JEFFERSON HATED Alexander Hamilton.  So much so he hired Philip Freneau as a translator in his State Department in George Washington’s administration.  You see, Jefferson did not like confrontation.  So he needed a way to slander Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration without getting his own hands dirty.  And that was what Freneau was supposed to do with the money he earned while working in the State Department.  Publish a newspaper (National Gazette) and attack Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration.  Papers then were partisan.  More so than today.  Then, lies and libel were tools of the trade.  And they knew how to dig up the dirt.  Or make it up. 

Another scandalmonger, James Callender, was slinging dirt for Jefferson.  And he hit pay dirt.  Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Philadelphia had a lucrative business.  They were blackmailing Alexander Hamilton.  Mr. Reynolds had his wife seduce Hamilton.  Which she did.  And did well.  They had an affair.  And Mr. Reynolds then blackmailed him.  Jefferson pounced.  Or, rather, Callender did.  To keep Jefferson’s hands clean.  Hamilton, Callender said, was using his position at the Treasury Department for personal gain.  He was using public funds to pay the blackmailer.  They found no proof of this.  And they did look for it.  Hard.  But when they came up empty, Jefferson said that it just proved what a good thief Hamilton was.  He was so good that he didn’t leave any traces of his treachery behind.

Of course, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  And Jefferson’s association with Callender would come back and bite him in the ass.  In a big way.  Upset because Jefferson didn’t appropriately compensate him for all his loyal dirt slinging (he wanted the postmaster’s job in Richmond), he publicized the Sally Hemings rumors.  And after breaking the true story of the Hamilton affair, many would believe this scoop.  That Jefferson was having an affair with one of his slaves.  It was a dark cloud that would forever hang over Jefferson.  And his legacy.

Hamilton admitted to his affair.  Jefferson admitted to no affair.  Hamilton would never hold public office again and would later die in a duel with Jefferson’s one-time toady, Aaron Burr.  This duel resulted because Hamilton was doing whatever he could to keep the amoral and unscrupulous Burr from public office (in this case, it was the governorship of New York).  When the election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr, Hamilton urged the House to vote for Jefferson, his archenemy.   Despite what had appeared in the press, Hamilton did have morals and scruples.  Unlike some.  Speaking of which, Jefferson would go on to serve 2 terms as president.  And all of that angst about Hamiltonian policies?  They all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, Big Government and Big Finance).

RONALD REAGAN WAS routinely called old, senile and out of touch by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  But he bested Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, something Jimmy Carter never did.  He said ‘no’ at Reykjavik because he told the American people that he wouldn’t give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  He knew the Soviet Union was bleeding.  Communism was a farce.  It inhibited human capital.  And impoverished her people.  SDI may have been science fiction in the 1980s, but capitalism wasn’t.  It could do it all.  Including SDI.  The Soviet Union was on the ropes and Reagan would give no quarter.  The days of living in fear of the mushroom cloud were over.  And capitalism would deliver the knockout punch.

Reaganomics, of course, made this all possible.  Supply-side economics.  Which follows the Austrian school.  Say’s Law.  ‘Supply creates demand’.  You don’t stimulate the economy by taxing one group of people so another group can spend.  You stimulate it by creating incentives for risk takers to take risks.  And when they do, they create jobs.  And wealth.

Tax and spend is a failed Keynesian, zero-sum economic policy.  When you take from the earners and give to the non-earners, we just transfer purchasing power.  We don’t create it.  For some to spend more, others must spend less.  Hence, zero-sum.  The net some of goods and services people are purchasing remains the same.  Different people are just doing the purchasing.

When Apple invented the Macintosh personal computer (PC), few were demanding a PC with a graphical user interface (GUI).  But Apple was innovative.  They created something they thought the people would want.  And they did.  They took a risk.  And the Macintosh with its mouse and GUI took off.  Apple manufacturing increased and added jobs.  Retail outlets for the Macintosh expanded and created jobs.  Software firms hired more engineers to write code.  And other firms hired more people to engineer and manufacture PC accessories.  There was a net increase in jobs and wealth.  Just as Say’s Law predicts.  Supply-side economics works.

Of course, the Left hates Reagan and attacked Reaganomics with a vengeance.  They attacked Reagan for being pro-rich.  For not caring about the poor.  And they revised history.  They say the only thing the Reagan tax cuts gave us were record deficits.  Of course, what those tax cuts gave us were record tax receipts.  The government never collected more money.  The House of Representatives (who spends the money), awash in cash, just spent that money faster than the treasury collected it.  The record shows Reaganomics worked.  Lower tax rates spurred economic activity.  More activity generated more jobs and more personal wealth.  Which resulted in more people paying more taxes.  More people paying taxes at a lower rate equaled more tax revenue in the aggregate.  It works.  And it works every time people try it. 

Because Reaganomics worked and showed the Left’s policies were failures, they had to attack Reagan.  To discredit him.  They had to destroy the man.  Except when they’re running for elected office.  Then they strive to show how much more Reagan-like they are than their conservative opponents.  Because they know Reaganomics worked.  And they know that we know Reaganomics worked.

GEORGE W. BUSH was routinely called an ‘idiot’ by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  Yet this ‘idiot’ seems to have outwitted the elite of the liberal Left time and time again.  I mean, if their policies were winning, they would be no reason to have attacked Bush in the first place.  The Left hated him with such vitriol that they said he blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq for her oil.  It was Big Oil’s lust for profit, after all, that was driving this Texan’s Big Oil policies.  And taking Iraq’s oil would increase Big Oil’s sales and give her even more obscene profits.

If Bush was an idiot, he must have been an idiot genius to come up with a plan like that.  Then again, gasoline prices crept to $4/gallon following the Iraq War.  Had all that oil gone on the market according to plan, that wouldn’t have happened.  Unless the plan was to keep that oil OFF of the market, thus, by rules of supply and demand, the price of oil (and the gasoline we make from it) would go up thus enriching Big Oil through higher prices resulting from a lower sales volume.  My god, what evil genius.  For an idiot.  Of course, gas taxes, numerous summer gas blends (required by the government’s environmental policies), an aging and over-taxed pipeline infrastructure and insufficient refinery capacity (the government’s environmental policies make it too punishing even to consider building a new refinery) to meet increasing demand (soaring in India and China) had nothing to do with the rise in gas prices.

IS THE POLITICAL Left evil?  Probably not.  Just amoral.  They have an agenda.  They survive on political spoils and patronage.  Old time politics.  Enrich themselves through cronyism.  If tribute is paid they’ll extend favorable treatment.  If tribute is not paid, they will release their wrath via hostile regulation, litigation, Congressional investigation and punitive taxation.  Just like they did to Big Tobacco (and, no, it wasn’t about our health.  They could have just made tobacco illegal.  But they didn’t.  Why?  It just brings in way too much money to the government.  Via sin taxes.  And federal lawsuits.  And with it being addictive, it’s a frickin cash piñata for them.)

They know few agree with their philosophy.  But they don’t care.  It’s not about national prosperity.  It’s about power.  And they want it.  That’s why they can’t debate the issues.  They know they can’t win.  So they attack the messenger.  Not the message.  If you don’t believe that, you can ask Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and just about any other Republican.  Well, you can’t ask Lincoln or Reagan.  But you can guess what they would say.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #13: “If you were to live under the socialist maxim ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need’ you would find yourself surrounded by needy people with no ability.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2010

KEY TO CIVILIZATION growth is the food supply.  Food surpluses in particular.  Before dependable food surpluses, life was short, harsh and miserable.  Especially for women.  When they weren’t working in the fields they were giving birth and raising children.  High infant mortality rates, though, inhibited population growth.  Most of the children women gave birth to didn’t survive to adulthood.  So there was a constant state of child rearing.  But few children survived to help with the business of family life.

Malnutrition and famine were common.  Feudalism provided a precarious balance between life and death.  For centuries the common people (i.e., peasants) eked out survival on their landlord’s manor.  The lord owned the land.  The peasants worked it.  Most of the bounty went to their lord.  But they kept what they grew on a small strip of land for themselves.  Just enough for subsistence.

But England changed all that.  By 1750, her agricultural output was second to none.  Private property.  Free market economy.  Capitalism.  Increased productivity.  Specialization.  These all combined to provide incentive.  Incentive produced food surpluses.  Food surpluses produced profits.  Reinvested profits improved farm yields.  This produced more profit.  And the cycle continued.  In less than a century feudalism would disappear from England.  There, you either worked land you owned or were paid wages to work land owned by others.  People began to live longer and healthier lives. 

The British Empire ruled the civilized world in the 19th century.  Representative government.  Abolition of slavery.  Free trade.  The Industrial Revolution.  These things, and others, gave them wealth, power and moral authority.  A lot of good came from this island kingdom.  Including the United States.  They weren’t perfect.  There was a learning curve.  But the modern capitalistic economy which they gave us liberated the masses.  It let us do what we wanted to do, not just what we had to do.  In particular, women, who could do more than just raise families and work in the fields.  One day, she could even become prime minister of Great Britain.

FOOD SURPLUSES BEGET industrialization.  Food surpluses beget everything, really.  Food surpluses release human capital to do everything else we do besides farming.  England was at the van of this modernization.  Others followed.  In time. 

Russia abolished serfdom (i.e., feudalism) in 1861.  Industrially backwards at the time, this liberty awakened a dormant human capital.  They followed the English model.  In time, with the advent of steamship and rail transportation, Russian grain competed with other European producers.

Joseph Stalin, looking to jump ahead in the industrialization process, implemented collective farming in the late 1920s.  He turned away from the English model.  The government became land owners.  It was feudalism on a grand scale.  Large collective farms would produce vast food surpluses that could feed industrial cities.  And there would still be surpluses left over to export to raise capital to build these industrial cities.  At least, that was the plan.

With less incentive came less productivity.  What land the former serfs had come to own was lost to the state.  The state took so much of the harvest that there was little food left for those who labored to grow it.  And the price the state paid for their crops was less than it was before collectivization.  The ‘free’ serfs were earning less and working more.  They didn’t like it.  And chose not to participate.  Collectivization became forced collectivization. 

Deportations, terror, murder and famine followed.  Perhaps more than 5 million starved to death during the famine of 1931 and 1932.  Others were to follow.

Forced collective farming produced famines elsewhere.  In China, during Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, forced collectivization produced even greater famine deaths.  Historians estimate that 20-30 million, maybe more, starved to death in the famine of 1959–62.  Though hard numbers aren’t available, North Korea suffered a devastating famine in the late 1990s that claimed millions.  But in the West, in the 20th century, famine was unheard of.  When the United States suffered during the great Dust Bowl of the 1930s, there was no corresponding famine despite the loss of productive farmland.

WITH INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY comes incentive.  With incentive comes productivity.  A small island nation of free land owners could produce grain to feed themselves with surplus left over for export.  Nations with great fertile tracts farmed by forced collectivization led to famine.  Slaves have little incentive other than to subsist.  The collective good means little to them when they are starving.  They continue to sacrifice.  And continue to suffer.  Even if they do produce a few more bushels of grain.  So if the suffering is the same, what is the incentive to work harder?

As individual liberty declines, those in power tend to exploit those they rule.  In the name of the state.  Or the common good.  This is easy to see when it results in famine or revolution.  Not easy to hide those things.  But it is a little more difficult to see when the results are more benign.  Longer unemployment benefits, for example.  I mean, those are pretty nice.  Hard to see the downside in them.  As it is in other benefits these rulers give us.  So we are seduced as they whisper these sweet nothings in our ears.  And soon we willingly cede our liberty.  A little at a time.

WITH THE RISE of individual liberty, there was a corresponding decline in the ruling elite thanks to representative government.  Great Britain gave this gift to us and the United States took it to incredible heights.  The oppressed everywhere immigrated to the United States to feed a growing industrial demand.  Being new, we did not know all the affects of industrialization.  When the bad things came to light, we addressed them.  Great Britain, for example, was one of the first to protect women and children from the worse of industrial society.  Still, working conditions could be harsh.  As could life in the industrial cities.  Poverty.  Filth.  Disease.  And it was the wretched state of life in these slums that gave birth to a new school of thought on industrialization. 

In 1844 Friedrich Engels wrote The Condition of the English Working-Class to expose life in these slums.  He would collaborate 4 years later with Karl Marx on a treatise called The Communist Manifesto.  And from this Marxism, Communism, socialism, collectivism, etc., would follow.  As economic systems go, these would all prove to be failures.  But the essence of them lives on.  State planning.

You see, it was capitalism that gave us the industrial slums.  And that was good propaganda for a ruling elite looking to rule again.  So they whispered sweet nothings into our ears.  They talked about a Social Utopia.  From each according to his ability to each according to his need.  Fair taxation (i.e., only the ‘rich’ pay taxes).  Social safety nets (paid for by taxes of the rich).  Shorter workdays.  Longer paid vacations.  More government benefits.  A burgeoning welfare state.  Free stuff for everyone.  Again, paid for by taxing the rich who have exploited the working class.

What evolved was the elimination of the middle class.  You had the evil rich (and the middle class were, for all intents and purposes, rich because they didn’t need government help) whose wealth the government taxed away.  And the poor.  The poor who the government would now take care of.  If elected.  And they were.  They seduced a great many people with their utopian vision.  Even in the West. 

Great Britain and the United States would fall to this seductress, too, thanks to the Great Depression.  It was capitalism that gave us the Great Depression, after all.  The greed of the money people.  And so these great nations declined from greatness.  They became welfare states, too.  They had short respites during the 1980s.  Margaret Thatcher helped rejuvenate Great Britain.  Ronald Reagan, the United States.  But the ruling elite whispered more sweet nothings in our ears and the decline continues.

In 2010, our appetite for state benefits appears to be insatiable.  And we may have run out of wealth to tax away to pay for it.  California is on the brink of bankruptcy.  New Jersey elected a governor who proposed draconian spending cuts to stave off bankruptcy.  Other ‘blue’ states (i.e., states who vote Democrat) are also in trouble.  Underfunded pension obligations.  Demands of teacher unions.  Of government worker unions.  Everyone is there with their hand out.  None of them are willing to sacrifice for the common good.  No, they expect others to do the sacrificing.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has increased federal spending to such record levels that Communist China is concerned about our fiscal/monetary policies.  As they should be; they hold a lot of our debt.  The federal government has ‘bailed out’ private industry and taken de facto control.  They have created a healthcare entitlement that will cost more than a trillion dollars.  More spending is coming.  And it is all for the greater good.  They are vilifying those who are not poor, taxing away what wealth they can from them and giving it to the poor.  When about half the electorate doesn’t pay any income taxes, there is little opposition to raising taxes on those who do.  For if the ‘rich’ complain, the government vilifies them.

Where will it all end?  It is difficult to say.  How will it end?  Badly.  We can look at Europe who we seem to be emulating.  They’re further down The Road to Serfdom than we are.  With the excessive government spending, there will have to be greater government revenue (i.e., taxes).  Previous methods of taxation may prove insufficient.  Hello value added tax (VAT).  It’s all the rage in Europe.  It’s a multiple tax.  At every stage of production, government is there.  Taxing.  From the raw materials to the final assembly, government is there at every stage.  Taxing.  VATs will increase government revenue.  But they will also make every day life more expensive.  VATs increase the sales price of everything you buy.  And you pay it again at checkout.  It’s everywhere.  Everything will cost more.  From manicures to lattes to toilet paper to tampons.  And this is a tax everyone pays.  Even the poor.  It is a regressive tax.  The rich will pay more, but the poor will feel it more.  This hidden tax will take a larger portion of what little the poor has.

But how bad can it really get?  In 2010, I guess the answer would be to look at Greece to see what happens when a country can no longer sustain her welfare state.  And the people aren’t all that keen on losing the government benefits they’ve grown accustomed to.  It isn’t pretty.  But when you start down that road (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), the taking and giving always get bigger.  It never gets smaller.  And when you reach a critical point, government just can’t sustain it any longer.  And it crashes.  Like in Greece.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »