A short blurb in today's (10/27/09) Wall Street Journal stated that home prices rose in most major American cities in August. This is cited as evidence of a recovering economy. But what does this mean and is it something we really want?
Perhaps you've noticed that prices at the pump are going up. Since this indicates demand for fuel has increased it is also touted as another 'sign' that the economy is rebounding. So, we have rising home prices and rising energy costs. Traditionally these indicators lead everything else which means we'll be seeing rising costs across the board. And this means the economy is rebounding?
I'll be the first to admit that once again, my raise at my job was an embarrassing joke. And even though it is called a 'merit' raise, my supervisor apologized and tried to make everything better by informing me that due to deflation the cost of living is actually lower than it was last year. Sorry, but, wrong. I'll bet than I'm not alone in what is obviously a long term era of wage stagnation.
So, we have costs going up as a sign of a reviving economy while wages are flat since the cost of living has gone down. And while I'm supposed to be happy that the economy is recovering, to tell you the truth, I hope it doesn't. If the only fallout from an improving economy is rising prices, since this has already been predicted to be a jobless recovery - whatever that means - then I don't think I want a better economy. In fact, I can't see that an improving economy helps anybody except the people who already have most of the money. Sure, the wealthy complain that they pay 90% of the taxes, but they seem to forget that they control 90% of the money.
I think it's time for the world, and especially America, to rethink what we mean by a growing economy. If it means forever escalating prices and flat wages then it isn't really helping anyone. At the same time, government mandated market controls and other draconian measures, that have been experimented with at length in various countries, always lead to disaster. So what can we do?
The US economy is driven by consumerism, which is why the Bush/Obama bailout is doomed to fail. It doesn't address the underlying flaw in the American economy. A flaw which is based on neither our government nor our economic system. It isn't even related to our political system - though both parties tend to make it worse in their own way. Indeed, the fatal flaw in the US economy derives from a growing problem in our society. As long as people determine the value of another person based on purely material criteria our economy will continue to sputter. And you see it everywhere.
The beautiful woman is able to rise to economic security faster and more assuedly than the unattractive woman either through marriage or preferential promotion. The wealthy man progresses more quickly up the ladder as a result of his houses, cars, and golf clubs. The children of wealthy parents secure coveted spots on sporting teams. Attractive babies get smiled at more often. Wealthy children get selected for better schools and colleges. None of this is a secret which is why the beauty products business is so ubiquituous, parents engage in unethical behavior to secure preferential treatment for their children, and people will lie, cheat, steal, and do anything, to win. While I'm not so foolish as to believe that people haven't been doing this since the dawn of time, I do know for a fact that the depth to which it penetrates society varies enormously.
For 200 years America's trump card was Christianity. But not because God was biasing world events in our favor. It was because the Christian behaviors of moderation, charity, mercy, honesty, self-sacrifice, and tolerance - the classic virtues - greatly favor the performance of an economy simply because they smooth the interaction between people. It makes for good business. God doesn't even have to exist for this to be true if enough people believe it. Indeed, these are the same reasons that any culture rises to prominence - and there have been many non-Christian cultures that have shone brightly. And despite the negative view Christianity has taken of these cultures, from Ancient Egypt to Rome, it was these very virtues that worked in their favor.
But as the prevelance of these behaviors begins to fall in the general population it begins to impact the economy. At first it isn't noticeable, which but encourages more people to abandon virtue in favor expediance. This is called the slippery slope. Once you start down that path it is very difficult to climb back up. In fact, history shows that it is impossible. At some point, as more and more people abandon virtue in favor of hedonism, especially those who control the wealth, society will collapse and the economy will follow. It might not happen over night, but it will happen. I think this is where we are in America today.
Do we want the economy to recover? Who does it benefit? Answer these questions for yourself and you may see that the slippery slope isn't a slippery slope anymore but a cliff. The edge draws near. What choices will you make today?
-Futbol Guru
In his article in The Observer on October 4th, Paul Harris asks the question, "Will California Become America's First Failed State?" Governor Schwarzenegger's specious California Vacation commercials notwithstanding, this is a question that needs asking. Indeed, in a scene reminescent of the post-Soviet collapse in Russia, the California state government was paying its employees in IOUs this summer and unemployment is over 12% - the highest in 70 years. (Do grocery stores take IOUs?) Regardless the situation is dire and one wonders how much Federal Stimulus money will go to prop up that teetering socialist state?
California, among its many socialist programs, has a health care program called Healthy Families that is intended to provide medical care for millions of the state's poorest residents. Over the years people have become dependent on this program. And why should they not? People tend to form dependencies on free services very quickly. The danger is when these free services fail. At present Healthy Families is failing due to the drop in tax revenue resulting from the recession. A recent scene at the Inglewood Forum near downtown Los Angeles, recounted in Harris' article, sounds more like a UN aid mission to Somalia than something happening in an American city. A travelling medical and dental clinic had set up shop outside the forum that promised free services to the first 1,000 people. The line stared forming at 1:00 AM and before the clinic had opened there were far more people in line than could be treated. Some had travelled hours to attend only to be turned away. Those who had become dependent on the state were being treated by volunteer workers. Americans used to travel to foreign countries to do this. Now we're doing it here.
This is the danger of socialist programs: It can not be assumed that tax revenues are going to be constant or that the economy is always going to grow. At some point the economy is going to contract and where does that leave the socialist programs? Introduction of a socialist medical system, even if it is a competing system and doesn't take over the private system, will spell disaster if not for everyone, then at least for those who grow dependent on it.
Consider the recent economic woes that have swept the nation - indeed, the world. To 'save' the global monetary system U.S. tax payers are forking over $750,000,000,000. Actually I should say, will be forking over $750,000,000,000 because the money is borrowed. And since jobs have dried up, the business sector has shrunk, and investment is down, the tax rolls are down, too. Way down. This is the problem in California and is why they can't pay for their socialist medical care program and people are resorting to volunteer run clinics. If we institute a socialist health care system at a national scale the same thing will eventually happen on a national scale. And when it does, not if - when it does, the non-existent private medical care industry won't be there to fill in with volunteer workers. Not to mention that the economy is down right now and talk of a HUGE new program is irresponsible at best and simply ludicrous at worst. It is tantamount to signing a contract for an expensive new gym membership when you just received word you're being laid off.
Before we adopt a socialist health care system, even if it isn't single payer, we had better look at California and ask what we're going to do the next time the economy shrinks. Except the next time it won't be just the monetary system or the mortgage industry that fails, you can pile health care on top of that. (Note: the health care system WAS NOT affected by this latest recession.) And it won't be tens of thousands as in California. It will be tens of millions. That's a lot of people angry at broken promises that should have never been made. It is simply amazing that Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both senators from California, are both such strong proponents for a national system when they are from a state where the system is failing. Are we simply going to borrow more to pay for it like California will have to do?
Will we borrow over $1,000,000,000,000 next time? How many zeroes are too many? How much of our progeny's future do we want to bargain away to feed the poor's insatiable, self-indulgent appetite for warmth and a full belly? This isn't a conservative or liberal question. It's a question asked by anyone who understands the danger of having more cash going out than you have coming in. Asked by anyone in an underpowered airplane or an overloaded ship. Asked by anyone who can't find enough food to replace the day's calories. It is a question ignored only by lemmings who will run any direction they are herded until they hurtle over a cliff and into the sea. Watch the film White Wilderness. Once those lemmings go over the cliff it's too late. See them try to scurry back up the slope? They can't and fall to their death. The narrator sounds really nice but he's the very guy driving them over the edge. And he got an Academy Award for it! I'm not a lemming. You're not a lemming. Anyone who doesn't want to go out and get a job like you and me doesn't deserve health care, much less FREE health care. Or free internet. Or a free cell phone. What kind of a nut is coming up with these ideas?
Futbol Guru
So Rush Limbaugh wants to own an NFL football team, huh? He does seem to know alot about, and have a true love for, the sport. Funny how things a person says years ago can come back from the past to haunt them later in life. Sort of like what this blog will do to my writing aspirations if ever I get the attentions of a gatekeeper (i.e., agent or editor). But for now my anonymity is doing a great job of keeping me, well, anonymous.
In reality I don't think Rush is a racist. If he were, he wouldn't make such seemingly racist comments. No, I think in this case he is a victim of his own self-honesty - at least on that subject. Then again, that Donovan McNabb comment was pretty stupid and he should have known better.
Regardless, it seems his bid for partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams has met with an untimely end in what he says is a vicious smear campaign bent on destroying conservatism. While Al Sharpton and his many detractors are definitely not conservatives, I think Rush's perception of who is destroying conservatism is skewed. Though he is right, conservatism is on the decline.
Even if the talking heads on the left are trying to destroy conservatism that sort of assault is generally ineffective. It is tantamount to Americans trying to convert Al Qaeda. Conservatives simply don't repond to those kinds of attacks. Just like Liberals don't respond to attacks from the right. In general, either camp, when under assault from the other, tends to circle the wagons. And in many cases, attacks from the opposition strengthen the base. The problem with conservatism isn't the attacks from the outside, the problem is what's happening inside the wagon-circle.
Every successful movement goes through a series of stages. There is the genesis when the group's founders carve a niche for themselves and begin attracting followers. It is their energy and the truthfulness of their message (in the ears of the converts) that builds momentum by attracting true believers. In most cases the group's founders not only preach the message, but live it as well. They become icons and examples of the ideologies they champion.
The second stage can be broadly categorized as growth. In this segment the group gains additional members not only from the truth of the message but from the appeal of a successful group. Except during this stage one begins to see that new members are less and less true believers, but simply people who want to be part of something that matters. In this stage you'll find people from the opposition flocking to the new movement like lemmings. Especially if the opposition is already in the third stage - corruption.
Success of a movement always breeds corruption because in addition to attracting true believers, success always attracts followers who have no interest in the core ideology. They just want to be in charge. It is these people who usually become the second generation of leaders. Because they have no stake in the ideology they are more free to move fluidly and are nearly always more aggressive and predatory. At the same time they are often charismatic and charming and will do whatever it takes to rise into leadership positions. For these people charisma and charm formed early in life as they realized they had nothing substantive to offer but were skillful at manipulation of others to get their way. In many cases they are sociopathic and in a primitive society would be banished because they not only offer nothing useful to survival, they demand to be served. In modern, affluent societies though they find willing followers because they personify the energy of the movement's success in themselves, and the majority of the second stage converts are only there for the party. Or rather, the partying. These leaders also tend to promote only those like themselves which but reinforces the growing problem.
Corruption of course leads to decline. A hypocritical group of leaders can only sustain the charade for so long before the acolytes doing all the work - that dwindling number true believers - get fed up and leave. When that happens the ideology collapses and all you are left with is a large group of angry people with self-aggrandizong leaders: the Republicans in 2008. It is also where the Democrats found themselves in 1994 when they were tossed out by an up and coming group passing through the second stage: Neoconservatives.
Reagan rekindled the dormant flames of Conservatism and he was, there can be no doubt, a true believer who was amply endowed with charisma and wit. True conservatives flocked to him in droves followed by millions who just thought he was a cool guy because he stood up to the Soviets. It was the second generation of his followers who took the reins of power in 1994. This included George Bush Jr., Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Marc Sanford, and many others, as well as popular figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who effectively self-monetized the swelling tide. While I won't say all these people are not conservatives, their actions do identify them as people whose personal aspirations trump the mandates of their own ideology. And some of them, such as Mark Foley and John Ensign were conservatives in name only, using the ideology only for personal gain and herding their only followers like lemmings to the cliff.
It is these people, I charge, with destroying conservatism - Not Al Sharpton, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, or even Barak Obama, who in fact tend to strengthen the opposition's core. From Rush Limbaugh's drug addition to Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs, from Dick Cheney's greed to George Bush's mistaken invasion of Iraq, from the seemingly uncontrollable sexual appetites of an endless string of elected officials, the party of Conservatism has become the party of Corruption and is being killed from within. Can the Republicans take a lesson from the Democrats who have reinvented liberalism in the form of a young, charismatic outsider? With the same old names being bandied about, I got to tell you, it looks like a trainwreck in slow motion. Or a modern adaptation of the film White Wilderness. And I for one am not going to wear a furry suit for those characters.
Futbol Guru
Leave it to the Norwegians. Barak Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... well, nothing. He did manage to get elected but he's only been in office for eight months. And he wins the Nobel Peace Prize? That can mean only one thing. The Nobel Peace Prize is worth about as much as the dollar.
Physicists strive for years to perfect their theories. Economists are honored after their death. Doctors come up with novel, new treatments that bring relief to millions. Artists and writers compile an entire lifetime of work before they are even eligible for a Nobel. And Obama gets one for doing even less than Gore. Or even Carter. Oh well, maybe he'll put the monetary award into the stimulus package - er, I forgot. The Nobel Prize is tax free.
Futbol Guru
It would be foolish to assume that just because a product or a need for a service exists, that any entity can do it well. For instance, you wouldn't get a company that specialized in demolition to build your house. Nor would you contract with an exterminator to have your yard landscaped. Likewise, if a concrete company offered to build you an airplane, it is my guess you'd politely decline and send your money elsewhere. And if they tried to convince you that they were the man for the job, you'd look at their past record and cite that as evidence for you to choose otherwise.
So why do elements of our government continue to insist that they can offer better healthcare, more affordably, than people who've been doing it for decades? Is healthcare even something that a government can be expected to do with any degree of efficiency? Let's look at their track record and see what it is they are good at:
The Postal Service was established in 1775. It has had 234 years to get it right but it is nearly broke. Meanwhile, relatively recent arrivals like UPS and FedEx provide much better service.
Social Security was established in 1935. The government has been managing that institution for 74 years and not even the democrats deny that it is broke - or soon will be.
Fannie Mae was founded in 1938. After 71 years, broke is a kind word to use for that failed government organization.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson started "The War on Poverty," fully intending to defeat it. After 45 years and over a trillion dollars per year we still have poor a'plenty and the entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid came on the scene in 1968. Like the others, but after only 41 years, they are both so broke the government is talking about scrapping them and... starting a new system?
Freddie Mac, birthday, 1971. It lived only 39 years before sliding into bankruptcy.
Trillions went into the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, commonly known as TARP. After pouring hundreds of millions into the pockets of failed executives it shows few signs of breathing any real life into our 'jobless' recovery. The US is now deeper in debt than ever before, our currency is devalued worldwide, and the Chinese are urging the world to leave the dollar standard - and I agree with them.
FDCI, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation, a government entity founded in 1933 to protect the bank assets of depositors announced yesterday that is, you guessed it, broke. (Added 9/30/09)
But there is a bright side. In 2001, months after the attack on the Twin Towers, the US Military invaded and subdued Afghanistan. Resistance remains, and always will, but they broke the Taliban.
In 2003 our military invaded Iraq and was in Baghdad in just a few weeks. And while pockets of resistance remained, they broke the back of the Iraqi Army and began construction of a new democracy in the Middle East.
Why do I lump these enormously successful invasions in with these titanic fiscal failures? To make one of the brilliant points for which I'm becomming widely known.
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Desert Storm, when asked what the function of the military is, replied, "To kill people and break things." Apparently, however, he was referring to the role of government in general. Looking back at the 20th Century, the major killer of humans was governments. From the Soviets, to the Nazis, to the Chicoms, to the Imperial Japanese, to just about every African regime on the continent, upwards of 200 million humans were exterminated by governments - often their own. This score FAR outpaces the old scourges of plague, pestilence, famine, and disaster and is only exceeded by old age. The true disaster in the modern world is government. (Which makes me wonder why we're so worried about H1N1...)
So, under government stewardship nearly every major social program in every major country is broke. Under government stewardship hundreds of millions have been murdered in the last 100 years. Looking at this track record what can it be inferred that government is best at? Why, killing people and breaking things, of course. And they want to run our healthcare system? Seriously?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I raised my children to be colorblind. I took no pride in doing so other than the pride I took in teaching them to walk and eat. In fact, you don't teach colorblindness. You teach racism.
At the appropriate age, I sent my children to school. There, they interacted with black and white on an equal level. They had good and bad teachers who were white, and good and bad teachers who were black. They had friends of every color and, I hate to say it, enemies, too. After all, you can't get along with everyone all the time.
This lasted up until about third grade, or about eight years old. Around this time, in January, they started bringing home handouts on Martin Luther King. Projects were assigned. This lasted most of the month. February rolled around and they began their black history studies. Neither of these things bothered me. What bothered me was the flavor and intensity of the material. Unlike the rather sparse learning they'd been exposed to in other areas of history, and to other people, the black history and MLK assignments had the flavor of propaganda. With George Washington my children learned that he was the first president, crossed the Delaware to do battle with the British (which were actually Hessians), and never told a lie. With Dr. King, they learned that through his bravery he prevailed against the tyrrany of the white man and ultimately led his people out of oppression to a promised land. It was personality cult stuff.
I didn't say anything. We did the assignments and turned them in. It continued year after year.
Now, kids are smart. They are people just like us and they know when someone is pulling their chain. It didn't take long for my children to grow weary of the propaganda and start asking questions. While what Dr. King did was important and noteworthy, it certainly doesn't eclipse what George Washington and the founding fathers accomplished. And while George Washington Carver was a brilliant scientist, what he did should not be exalted above the discoveries of Watson and Crick - a revolution that changed everything. By the time my kids got to Middle School, they despised both Martin Luther King and Black History Month. The public school system was turning my kids into racists.
We now have the same thing happening at a national level. Conservatives who are opposing Obama's healthcare overhaul are saying and doing the same thing they did to Clinton when he was trying to restructure health care into a government institution. In fact, there was a huge turnover in congress because of what Clinton did. And, unless my memory is completely faulty, Clinton was a white guy.
If there is anything people hate, it is being told that they are something they are not. And telling people they are racists because they oppose something they are opposed to, is going to turn them into racists as certainly as making someone sit in the back of the bus. The idiots making this charge are destroying years of progress. And they have not a single, credible example of what they are claiming. Indeed, to assume a person is a racist because of the color of their skin, is the height of being a racist yourself. Many whites once assumed that the black people they met were unintelligent, based solely on the color of their skin. How are today's accusations any different?
There is a ground swell of opposition to a government takeover of healthcare. The left knows this. They want to stop it. What has worked consistenty when whites are opposing blacks? The race card. Whites back down. The leadership of the left knows this, too. Maureen Dowd says she can almost hear Joe Wilson tack "boy" onto the end of "You Lie!" This isn't news but it's being repeated by multiple new outlets. This is propaganda. Maybe even libel. Josef Goebbles level subterfuge. It never happened. But I'll wager that in a year a lot of people are going to think that Joe Wilson said, "You lie, boy."
Now Jimmy Carter isn't so stupid as to really think this is racism. He has been places where there is real racism - North Korea, Darfur, Palestine - and this ain't it. But he is a good enough politician to get himself elected president. He is a consummate Washington insider and has a vested interest in the the success of his party. He knows how to herd lemmings, and that is what he is doing.
For someone who claims to be such an elder statesman, he is doing a pretty good job of inciting division, hatred, and yes, racism. But should we really be all that suprised, because he was a lousy President.
Futbol Guru
My wife is a school teacher. She teaches physics and chemisty to kids a lot bigger than she. The school she works in is a bit different than a normal school. It is called a "Technology High School" and is open to any student in the city - if they can get in. As you might expect, the demographic is very rich with over 50% of enrollment being minority status, which makes them the majority at the school, incidentally.
My wife is white and the most fair and even-handed person I've ever known. Kids who give other teachers a fit are never a problem for my 105 pound ball of spunk. Why? Because she treats everyone with respect. She treats everyone the same. I recall a few years ago when the valedictorian at her school, a wonderful, brilliant, young lady with lovely dark skin exalted my wife, in part, as a role model. She went on to state her qualities and thanked her for setting such an example and helping this young lady attain her dream. It brought my wife to tears.
My wife is no racist. But without fail, there will be those in her classes who accuse her of racism. And who are these? While my wife is no racist and treats all with respect, she retains control of her classes. You step out of line in her class and you are going down. White kids act up, hispanic kids act up, and black kids act up. Sometimes they argue with her as to their guilt and sometimes they hang their heads sheepishly and go to the office. But the black kids, and certainly not all of them, are the only ones who ever accuse her of being a racist. And they'll do it to her face. Even when they were obviously acting up, or get caught cheating, or are using their cell phones. All too often they will mutter, or exclaim, "It's just because I'm black!"
Why did Joe Wilson shout out, "You lie!" Well, maybe it was the same reason my wife sends kids to the office. Because they were talking in class! Because Obama was lying. And that he is lying is demonstrable. (See Ma Bell, Milk and the Medical Industry, and The Single-Payer / Public Option Lie.) I can't tell you how many times a kid caught cheating will deny it and then loudly cry racism. Now Mr. Obama hasn't said racism, but his attack-dogs have surely been yelling it at the top of their lungs. Maybe some of them even believe it. But do you want to know the real reason they are shouting racism? Because whitey trained them to do it. When they use the "R" word, whitey backs down. And why does whitey back down? Because the vast majority of whites are NOT racist, and the accusation stings them and impunes their honor. They don't want people thinking they are racists. And of course, they don't want to get sued either.
Picture this. You're a furry little creature, with hundreds of other little furry creatures going about your furry life, when all of a sudden you are snatched from your world and stuffed into a box. Sort of like the Nazi's did with Jews. Suddenly you're thrust into the sunlight in an unfamiliar place. To one side are big, creatures waving arms and shouting. You and your terrified compatriots turn only to run into more of the strange creatures. Every direction you turn, you meet with the terror. Except one. You run that direction with all your speed. You and your companions, furry little bodies surging forward, panting. An outlet! Then, all of a sudden, you're in free space, falling into the ocean. You never noticed the cameras rolling and certainly had no conception of the narrator calmly stating, "Why they do this is just one of life's mysteries..." (If you don't know what I'm talking about, please click --> here.)
Racism. Another lie. A word for people to get their way. A word to herd the lemmings. A word to eliminate the competition and sieze power. A word used to stay out of trouble. "You lie!" isn't racist any more than "Piss Christ" is free speech. Racism is Tutsi's murdering Hutu's. Racism is Darfur. Racism is Serbs, Croats, and mass graves. We don't have racism in this country any more, just a bunch of pussies, black and white. So don't buy it. Don't be a lemming. Or sooner or later you're going to find yourself falling through free space with the ocean rushing at you. And when it happens, just remember, someone off to the side is calmly saying, "Why they do this is just one of life's mysteries..." I hope you know how to swim.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Grassroots is a term that really needs no explanation. Let a blade of good old Bermuda grass get hold and it will spread across a lawn like an invading army. Grass starts at the gound and does its own thing. Which is why it is applied to viral political movements. Such movements get started at the local level by average citizens who are moved to get involved. That is what makes it special. There is no power structure whipping people into a frenzy with neural linguistic programming and other slick tricks, grassroots is people getting involved on their own initiative, finding each other, linking up, and spreading like wildfire. Or, Bermuda grass.
There've been a lot of claims that the conservative resistance to President Obama's health care plan, and more recently his speech to kids, are orchestrated events. That people are being given 'marching orders' and blindly following them. A number of public officials from Nancy Pelosi to Barney Frank and even the President himself (who should be above such things) have cried loudly that Republican leaders are out trying to scare people, sending them to disrupt townhall meetings, and generally organizing an illigitimate resistance. I have a few problems with these arguments.
First, there is no Republican leadership and the people who are trying to be the leaders are grossly incompetent. That is evidenced by that Party's nomination of John McCain for President last year. And for at least two years the Democrats have been reveling in, commenting on, and exploiting the lack of any effective Republican leadership. So what group are they talking about who has organized this fierce resistance and where are the converts who didn't show up for the election last fall?
So where has this strong opposition come from? This strong opposition is, well, me. And thousands, even millions, like me. I'm not a Republican though if they had any decent leaders and a plan and would accept poor people into their ranks, I might be. (Ronald Reagan, where are you?) But I'm sitting here writing this blog this morning when I should be trying to make some money so I can pay my taxes. And just to the left of this text you'll find a link to a website selling "Just Say NObama" paraphenelia. I made that stuff. I sat here on my computer and used Adobe Photoshop to put together pithy sayings then uploaded them to a website that turns them into bumperstickers. Nobody told me to do that. I just got sick of being lied to, and yes, I'm smart enough to tell when a politician is lying to me. You don't even have to be a rocket scientist to know that. Just watch their lips. If their lips are moving, they are lying. Why did I spend a weekend making PNG files and getting them formatted right, setting up a webstore, and generally agonizing over the direction of the country? Because a charalatan is trying to sell us a bill of goods and millions of people see the Emperor's New Clothes. Or rather, don't see them. If that isn't grassroots then the word has no meaning.
Third, who the hell are some democrat leaders to tell me that a movement is illegitimate? They are the kings of the special interest. Who the hell do these bastards think they are, telling me I can't go to a townhall meeting and scream my head off like they've been doing since the sixties? What a bunch of effite, pompous, commie snobs. It doesn't matter if the movement is organized, grassroots, or left field, this is a democracy and if somebody is protesting then they are as legitimate as some freak at a San Francisco convention to save the gay whales.
There is a truth of human nature at work here, and it is this: a thief trusts no one. Thieves, being dishonest, assume everyone around them is dishonest also and are constantly expecting to be stolen from. People in general think this way. And honest people, on the other hand, think others are honest. The democrats, because everything they do is orchestrated, can't even conceive of a grassroots movement getting started by itself because they are always out trying to start grassroots movements. And grassroots movements don't come from organization or they're not grassroots. So when they see a large groundswell of protest, they assume it must be orchestrated because their groundswells always are orchestrated. Like the fanatical protesters we see from communist countries - except the cameras don't show the machine guns just off stage. Now I'm not suggesting that democrats point machine guns at their supporters to get them in the mood, but they do bus them around, saturate them with propaganda, and generally organize opposition extremely well. Sort of like the way lemmings were used in the Disney Movie, White Wilderness.
And there's another truth of human nature at work here as well. The democrats know these tactics work and don't want us using their play book.
Grassroots? The opposition to ObamaCare is the definition of grassroots. Why? Because it is a bad idea written into an even worse bill. And yes, there are people out there who know good from bad, prefer good to bad, and will fight against turning good into bad. Who are these people? Well they're not lemmings, I'll tell you that. And they could use a leader. But where do you find great leaders in a land where there are so few humble beginnings?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming .
Fifty Cents Worth of Justice is better than millions of dollars spent by the California justice system.
Fifty cents is all it would have cost to have saved the life of a little girl. Fifty cents. And not fifty cents per day, like they tell you on those commercials for saving some little kid in Somalia. Fifty cents, one time, and a life is saved. And not just one life.
When Jaycee Duggard was kidnapped by that monster it shattered not just her life, but that of her parents, grandparents, and friends. And fifty cents could have kept it from happening.
Already convicted of a brutal kidnap-rape, that quasi-human creature, Phillip Garrido, was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He served eleven. Three years later he kidnapped Jaycee Duggard.
How much does a .357 magnum round cost? About fifty cents. Unfortunately, the bankrupt state of California will once again spend millions.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/bolgs/not-a-lemming
Okay, I'll admit that I was listening to NPR yesterday (8/20/09). Like the old Cold War addage goes, you have to know your enemy. And admittedly, NPR covers a lot of news I wouldn't otherwise hear about. I have to listen to it with my filters on, just like I have to listen to Rush with my filters on, but through the right glasses, NPR is reliable and even useful. But never, oh no never, funny. And when they try to be it is just embarrassing. But that's another story.
Yesterday I happened to tune in at the beginning of a story on milk. Not Harvey Milk as you might expect NPR to cover, but the white stuff I enjoy with cookies before bed. Apparently the milk freemarket is under assault having been taken over by a few, ruthless conglomerates. After all, as the number-three fluid handling industry in the nation, after water and petrochemical fuels, we're talking about millions upon millions of gallons a year. Milk may be white but that adds up to a lot of green.
The two evil culprits are Dallas-based Dean Foods, and Dairy Farmers of America, or DFA, headquartered in Kansas City. Though the stuff they pedal is wholesome, their business practices aren't. At least that is the take by independent dairy farms who are being squeezed out by what even NPR is calling a cartel. They must be making a lot of money. In truth, they have been engaging in predatory business practices and are, or may well be, in violation of various anti-trust laws now on the books. Laws that exist to foster competition because as these laws attest, choice is good for consumers because it drives down prices. The government must agree because the Justice Department under President Obama is considering filing suit against these conglomerates and breaking them up. Especially since they've joined forces.
Ma' Bell faced the same government attack in the 70's. Or was it the 80's. I forget, it was oh so long ago, and if your interested you can Google it and get firehosed. Anyway, The Bell Telephone Company pretty much was The telephone company. Because they owned the wires, they owned everything. At some point the government invoked anti-trust laws enacted by Theodore Roosevelt at the turn of the last century when the Railroads had stifled competition. Prices had risen, service had degraded, and customers were tired of having no other choice. The break up was huge, and lasted for years, but one consequence was, in part, the enormous telecomm boom of the late 80's and 90's. Amazingly, throwing competition into the mix lowered prices drastically while at the same time improving service and greatly expanding the industy. The short of it, more tax dollars into government coffers.
Now we come to the Medical industry which the left, if it could have its way, would centralize into one huge, government run blob. Many politicians on the left are on record as favoring this approach. The same politicians, that freely admit through support for moves to break up Dean Foods and DFA, and who proved by busting up Ma'Bell, that the best way to lower prices and improve service is to create more competition. So what is up? Why do they want to break up the milk cartel to lower prices, and at the same time, centralize the medical industry to lower prices? Is President Obama in violation of anti-trust laws? Is it just me or does this sound...?
When things don't make sense it pays to look behind the confusion at motives. Why are all those lemming running towards a cliff? If something doesn't make sence you have to ask yourself, what does the person doing the herding really want? The arguments posed by the left to consolidate health care to lower prices and improve service don't make sense. So what is it that they really want?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
The old joke goes something like this: How can you tell a politician is lying? Easy. His lips are moving.
While elected officials have contributed mightily to our perception of their honesty they are not entirely responsible for their reputation. Having been an athlete for many years on all three sides of the ball - playing, coaching, and referring - I've come to understand one very important fact: emotions influence perception. If someone has a bias towards an ideology or solution the mind is very good at justifying a choice of that particular ideology or soultion. Even to the exclusion of otherwise obvious facts to the contrary. We've all seen this and is something of which most are guilty.
But there is one point in the single-payer approach to healthcare that is a clear cut lie being pandered by the left. It goes something like this. Healthcare is too expensive so we need a "public option." This public option, it is said by many long time supporters of a single payer system, will foster competition between insurance companies and result in lower rates. That is what is being said.
The reality is much different though, and here is how. Elected officials in favor of the public option are almost unanimously in favor of single payer. Single payer, however, means the legislative elimination of all competition. So on the one hand they are saying that the public option is good because it will increase competition and thereby reduce costs, while on the other hand they are on record as favoring a plan that will eliminate all competition. And no-competition always means only one thing, higher prices. In point of fact, they are supporting opposite solutions with opposite outcomes for the healthcare problem. Since it is unlikely they are unaware of this cognitive dissonance the question becomes, for the rest of us, "Why?"
One thing that can be said about Barney Frank and his ilk is that he is a consumate politician. He wants single payer. He also knows he can't get single payer in a single step. So what does a career bureaucrat do when he wants something he can't get? He introduces step legislation. Step legislation can come in two forms. It can be written badly so that interpretation by judges can give the bill's supporters what they want. Or, it can begin the process, increase people's dependency, hamstringing the competition, so that bills introduced later will face less and less resistance. Current versions of the healthcare bill in the house and senate take both approaches.
In some cases it is difficult to know exactly what someone's motives are. If you'd asked a German citizen on the street in 1934 what Germany was going to be like in 1944, I doubt any of them would have predicted a police state with institutionalized death camps. Unless they'd read Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was imprisoned for having attempted to stage a coup. It spelled out his intentions in detail. But his party was swept into power anyway and he was ultimated appointed Chancellor. The part about the Third Reich being utterly defeated and Germany destroyed and split in the process wasn't in Mein Kampf, however. No doubt an oversight by the Fuhrer.
Do I think Obama is Hitler and the US Germany? Of couse he isn't and no we're not (though Hitler was actually Austrian and the Nazis swept into power amid the tumult of a Global economic meltdown.) But history tells us only too well what happens when mere men are granted power over their brothers. Hitler lost control of the machine he built. While he is responsible for the Holocaust through his association with passing laws that allowed it to take place, he is neither solely responsible nor directly or indirectly guilty of each and every atrocity. In fact, once certain legislative doors had been opened, the fate of Nazi Germany was inevitable. The first laws against Jews didn't order them to death camps, they merely curtailed their economic rights. When that weakened them, and strengthened others, more laws followed. The door only needed to be cracked.
So, how do you tell when a politician is lying? Well, it is when he's lying.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Dinosaurs were big. They were the largest land creatures to ever walk the Earth. The largest were nearly a hundred feet long. But as large as they were there is a good reason they didn't get any bigger. In fact, there is an absolute limit to the size an Earth-bound creature can grow without collapsing under its own weight.
Complex organisms like humans, bears, and dinosaurs are muscles hung on a skeleton. The skeleton supports the structure and the muscles make it move. As you'd expect, as the animal becomes larger the skeleton and muscles must become larger as well. While creatures can become large and strong, much larger than humans, the proportions at which they scale are not linear.
For example, if an animal evolves into a similar creature that is twice as tall, you might think that the bones would have to be twice as large. In fact, this doesn't hold. The strength of a bone is related to the cross-sectional area of the bone. However, weight of the bone is related to volume, and volume increases much faster than cross-sectional area. A bone twice as large will weigh four times as much. This means the bones get heavier faster than they get larger and stronger. Eventually, the bone will simply break. Bridges, skyscrapers, and other structures have similar limitations.
Economics is much like this. England has a population 51 million. A healthcare system large enough to service 51 million people won't necessarily scale to a country like the United States which has a population of 330 million; six times larger. This is true because the system won't necessarily have to be just six times larger, it may well have to be 36 times larger. Consider this example as you recall the previous example of the bone.
I build cabinets. I don't do this for a living but it is something I enjoy and we occasionally need cabinets at my house. And the scientist inside me likes holding tolerances to 1/64 of an inch. Regardless, I have a 12' x 20' shop in my backyard that is large enough to build one cabinet at a time. I can store the wood and the tools in the shop. Move the partially completed structure around in the shop at various stages of construction. Then, when I don't building it I can clean the shop thoroughly and move on to the finishing phase - which must be as dust free as possible. While I also use my shop to fix my trials motorcycles, clean guns, and do other odd jobs, I can pretty much only do one thing at a time in there.
Suppose I wanted to start a business building cabinets, something I've thought about from time to time. What would it take? At a minimum I'd have to build another building for the finishing because I can't finish and build at the same time. And finishing takes time as the paint, stain, and varnish cure. Time that I could use to start other projects.
As business picked up I'd have to build another building to store more wood or I'd be wasting all my time at Lowe's. And then increases the size of my small shop so I could work on multiple projects at one time. At some point I'd have to invest in larger tools that I wouldn't have to wheel around. Eventually I'd have to hire more people. While some of them would build cabinets, others would have to maintain the machinery and keep the shop clean or we'd be knee deep in sawdust. Others would go out and buy wood, sandpaper, glue, nails, stain, and deliver and install the completed units. Which means I'd also have to buy some trucks. Which would need more people for maintenance.
At this point I have enough employees that I need specialized employees to manage the employees and computers to streamline the workflow. Now I need IT guys to keep the computers working. And someone to keep track of the books. And people to keep tabs on them. My stain supply has gone from a gallon a year to a hundred gallons a month and Lowe's doesn't support that so I have to get someone to go out and find a supplier, then lawyers to draw up the contracts. And now I'm also sponsoring golf tournaments to keep the lawyers and executives happy - yes, people are part of this equation. Never forget that personal appetites are a part of EVERY equation.
Taking this example to the absurd, suppose I get so big that I become the supplier for every cabinet built in the country. I would now have to have a huge distribution system requiring thousands of people to maintain equipment, buy wood, transport raw materials and completed products, manage the people, manage the managers, and schmooze government officials who are breathing down my neck about where I'm going to dispose of the thousands of tons of sawdust and scrap wood. And just the buildings to house all the equipment and cabinet makers will cover hundreds of acres. I've got labor managers, facility managers, machinery managers, utility managers, benefits managers, administrative managers, environmental managers, manager managers, and an entire executive structure that now wants golf tournaments in Dubai. My business is a thousand times larger but the structure has grown much, much more than that, and is now full of corporate climbers, greedy executives, and self-serving lawyers who have multiplied the bureaucracy for their own ends. And everybody wonders why my cabinets suck now.
Healthcare is barking up the same tree. The bureaucracy that will be necessary to support this government acquisition will produce the same waste, inefficiency, complacency, and largesse that would obviously come from World Cabinet Makers International. That is why European-style healthcare can't work on a US scale. Sure it is great, I guess, that everybody gets to go to the doctor for free. But the best parts about these systems will scale far less quickly than the worst parts about these systems simply because of the law of Entropy. Everything in life is like this and you learn it in your gut by the time you're twelve years old. Don't ignore this simple fact of life now or we'll wind up with a huge, ravenous dinosaur that that will roar for more, and more, and more food but never be full. It won't be able to move because its bones are too large, nor can we let it die because it'd take a hundred years to rot, so we just have to keep bringing it more, and more, and more of our resources until the basic service it was born to serve will be so deeply buried in bureaucracy that you won't even be able to find it. There is no European healthcare system. There are separate, much smaller completelyt separate systems, in each of the various contries in Europe.
Obama knows this. So do the Capitol Hill morons who are pushing it. But they're not really interested in what the dinosaur will do for us. They're interested in what the dinosaur will do for them. For they are the dinosaur and it is their appetite for power and control that we'll be feeding. And once we've taken that step towards creating the paradise of Vol, there is no turning back.
Below is a brief list of Western European nations whose healthcare people like Obama and Barney Frank want to emulate, followed by their populations. Some of these countries actually have decent systems. The only free healthcare country I know of with a population close to the size of the United States was the former Soviet Union and NOBODY went there for healthcare unless they wanted to be dead.
Germany - 82 million
France - 65 million
Italy - 60 million
England - 51 million
Spain - 46 million
Canada - 33 million
Netherlands - 16 million
Belgium - 10 million
Portugal - 10 million
Sweden - 9 million
Austria - 8 million
Switzerland - 7 million
Denmark - 5 million
Norway - 4 million
Iceland - 319 thousand
United States - 330 million
Soviet Union - 293 million
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I suppose that in a perfect world everyone would have access to healthcare. Well, then I guess the United States is as close to perfect as anywhere because everyone here has access to healthcare. Just like anyone can buy a car, buy a home, or buy clothes and food, anyone can buy healthcare. Healthcare is a service and money is the medium we use to exchange our time for goods and services.
Linking the concept of Universal Healthcare to the word free is a lie. We have universal healthcare. What we don't have is free healthcare. Nor do we have free cars, free houses, or free clothes and food. There was a time, not that long ago, when it was understood that hard work and good choices led to more options in lifestyle. Long before I graduated from high school my parents were telling me that I'd need to get a good education so I could get a good job with good benifits. And lest you think that I was raised with a silver spoon in my mouth, think again. Economically we were lower middle class and neither of my parents went to college. My father worked very hard and understood that hard work and good choices could take you places. Hard work and good choices led to higher paying jobs with access to health insurance. It was one of the benefits of hard work and one of the things that motivated you to stay on track. My brothers didn't listen to his advice, didn't work hard, made poor choices, and have paid the price. But to their credit, they don't expect anything for free.
As a result of hard work and good choices, and years of delayed gratification and personal sacrifice, I now have a good job and work in a nice place surrounded by other hardworking people. No, I'm not rich and my family finances are tight. It doesn't look like I'll ever retire. My cars aren't new and my house needs work. And it galls me to this day that I can't take the vacations I see other people take. As a result I sometimes think my life sucks. Especially since I'm rarely around people who's lives do suck. But I had that chance recently and it opened my eyes.
We had some work done on our house this summer. No, I didn't have a windfall, I borrowed money that I now must pay back. The owner of the contracting company who did the work was a pretty sharp guy. He was reasonably punctual (for a contractor) and accurate and seemed to have his affairs in order. His hired help was another matter entirely. Their finances were in complete disarray. None of them had cars - one of them actually had a vehicle reposessed on the job. None of them had health insurance. They were walking disasters. On the surface it seemed kind of sad. But as days turned into months (no it isn't quite done even now!) their stories began to come out. To a man they had made horrible choices pissed away their public education, and taken every short cut conceivable. Some had been in jail. Others had multiple children outside of wedlock. Some had past drug problems. Others simply failed to show up for work and couldn't be reached. (Naturally of course they all had cell phones.) The owner tried to find better help but good workers seem to be quite a rarity these days.
As I took all this in it began to dawn on me that a) I really had a wonderful life and b) these people were entirely responsible for their own misery. From this I came to c) why the hell should I pay for their free healthcare?
The question Obama is asking, and the question our nation is debating, should not be, "How are we going to pay for free healthcare?" The question should be, "Why should we pay for free healthcare?" Why should my hard work, good choices, years of personal sacrifice and delayed gratification, countless long nights studying when others were out playing, saying no to sex when it sounded damn good, staying healthy by refraining from bad behavior, be used to pay for people who will screw anything with two legs, come to work drunk - or high, fail to pay their bills (because they pay their texting bill first), and called anyone with a decent GPA a geek? And the president is out there preaching that it is partly my fault, and at the very least is my problem, that they don't have healthcare? Pardon my French but, What the fuck?
The short of it is, these people don't deserve free health care. Sure, they may be nice. And these guys I worked with were very nice and even polite. But it was to their advantage to be so when they were on the job. You'd see a far different story Saturday night when they bust some dude over the head with a bottle because they're both to drunk to notice that the guy that just called their girlfriend a "Ho," had already left the bar! Why, how, and when did that kind of behavior become worthy of my time and effort?
I actually lied at the beginning of this piece. I said there were no free cars, free houses, or free clothes and food. In fact, there are. Free housing is called the projects. Free cars is called the public transportation. Free clothes and food are called welfare. And it was government mandates that made mortgage credit available to people who had no business buying a house and led directly to worst recession since the depression. I wonder how long it'll be until "cash for clunkers" morphs into the auto-loan meltdown, because $4,500 isn't a lot of money when you have a $500/month car payment for 72 months.
Yeah, free healthcare. That sounds just great. Only don't ask me to pay for it because I sure as hell ain't gonna be using it.
-Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/not-a-lemming
Don't be a lemming. When some flashy guy in a funny hat starts waving his arms and yelling, "Danger! Danger! Run, run, run! As fast as you can!" take a moment to look around and see where you're going. You might just find there's a cliff there behind the bedsheet painted to look like a rosy sunset. Lemmings don't commit mass suicide, they are guilty only of mass hysteria when in the presense of clever film makers who stand to gain from the carnage.
The health care debate goes something like this: Health care costs are rising. Many people are uninsured. We need a government insurance plan to make health care affordable. Obama has promised that this option is not intended to put private insurers out of business but only to provide an option for the poor. Is the Futbol Guru the only person who sees that this argument makes no sense whatsoever?
As far as I can tell, providing government insurance doesn't address rising medical costs at all, it just makes people with jobs pay for those without jobs. Hospitals are expensive and must be amortized over time. Drugs are expensive and must be included in the cost of care. Medical equipment is expensive because it does amazing things. Makers of hospitals, drugs, and equipment need good lawyers because people are always trying to sue them for killing grandma. And of course doctors and nurses aren't cheap either. These are the costs of health care and are completely unaddresed by the subject of government insurance, which promises only to pay the bills.
Access to health care is literally, access to your life. What better way to control people than to control access to your life? You'll do just about anything to get the chemo that could save your child's life, wouldn't you. Or your own. And people might hold that over you to get what they want. There are people who think this way. They want to control your life for their own ends. Sometimes they just want to get rich. Sometimes they just want to be in charge, or have some personal agenda like environmentalism. We all know people like this. Sometimes they are the little-league parent who demands their child be placed in a position of honor. And sometimes they are the President of the United States.
What has the Obama administration tried to take control of since taking office? The health care debate is front and center right now. If the government wins they control your health.
What else? The auto industry? They already own two of the three American automakers and are passing ever more stringent regulations. Are these regulations all environmental? Maybe they are and maybe they're not. Either way, they now control 2/3 of the US auto industry which means they are in the process of taking over transportation. And what is transportation if not your ability to move from place to place? They will control movement in the country.
How about energy? Cap and trade will place a tax on the use of fossil fuels. How do you get around? Fossil fuels. Cap and trade will further limit your movements. And if you want to leave the country you'll need energy to do it. How will that affect the cost of an airline ticket? Will you be able to afford it? Will you have enough carbon credits left to buy an airline ticket even if you have the money? They will control your ability to leave the country? Liberty itself is at stake.
Anything else? How much money has gone to banks? What do these banks now 'owe' the government. How much does the Federal Reserve, always a private, quasi-governmental institution, now owe to the government? The Federal Reserve controls cash flow. Does the government now control where the money goes? It sure has done some radical redistribution in the last six months.
A recap of what the government stands to gain if they get their way with all this? They could ultimately control your health, your movement within the country, your ability to leave the country, and your access to money. Sounds a bit like another country that is no longer with us. The largest empire in the history of planet Earth. Lot of people cried when that wall came down. Reckon they might just be smiling again.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Oh for the days of liberals like John F. Kennedy!
I recently watched Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address on YouTube. (See it --> here.) It was filled not with grandiose, government, give-away programs, but with rhetoric about how we as citizens of the finest country on Earth have control over our own destiny. He went on to say again and again that both sides (US and Soviet) needed to work together in a new spirit of cooperation and peace, using science not for destruction, but for exploration and the betterment of man against our common enemies, tyranny, poverty, sickness, hunger, and the other ills of the ages. Encourage discovery and commerce. Commerce! He then said that this battle wouldn't be won during the first hundred or even the first thousand days of his administration, and maybe not even in our lifetimes, but that it was important to begin. And that, "In your hands, more than mine, rests success or failure." He actually said that. This was followed by a call to service to bear the burden of the long struggle. A call to service! The long struggle. You see, Kennedy understood that government couldn't fix these problems, and indeed that they couldn't be 'fixed.' They could only be battled, and that it was going to take people serving and getting involved. He followed this with one of the greatest phrases from any inaugural speech:
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
JFK has been the liberal posterchild ever since, but curiously, you don't hear much about him these days. Perhaps that's because no liberal in his left mind would say, or even support, the principles President Kennedy was espousing. Service. Sacrifice. Struggle. Involvement. Persistence. Compare these principles with Mr. Obama's. He literally promised to fix things and he promised that government was going to do it and do it quick. People needed only to get out of the way and let him get the job done. In his hands, not ours, lies success or failure. And once he has stared the problem down it will be finished. No protracted struggle. No sacrifice. No service. Just a blank check -- if only those pesky conservatives would get out of his way. "Let me show you what your can country do for you!" has been his mantra since the beginning of the campaign. (Or is it "Show me the money!") And now the government is helping you buy a car!!! That's what your government can do for you, baby. Kennedy is rolling over in his grave!
But even with his push for publicly-funded healthcare, nationalization of the auto industry, and socialized car purchasing I guess there's still one line from Kennedy's speech Mr. Obama might be able to use. He'd give it a little polish to make is shine just right, though. His own special spin to make it truly his, for he does turn a phrase like no other. It'd probably go something like this:
"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!"
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
More Posts
Next page »