H/t Mairi. The video illustrates the threat that the federal government poses to your safety.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Newsmax is using this video on Facebook to advertise a newsletter associated with the book Aftershock. I haven't read the book or looked at the newsletter, but found the video to be a pretty good depiction of what is likely to happen in the economy and in the financial markets. I think I will pick up a copy of Aftershock from Amazon.com.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
People often raise the question as to why progressives support failed ideas. As well, many conservative non-Jews are aghast that left-wing Jews continue to support progressives like Barack Obama, who has been threatening the Jewish state.
The answer is that progressives are neither Jew nor Christian nor any other religion save one. They are Progressives. In his tour de force Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology* Wolf Lepenies outlines the rise of sociology as an attack on literature, but from the beginning sociology was posited not just as a science, but as a religion. Progressivism perpetuates the sociological tradition.
Central to Lepenies's thesis are the sociologies of Auguste Comte and Beatrice Webb. Comte was the author of the terms sociology and positivism. His early work was an attempt to locate a social physics or sociology at the apex of the sciences. To do so Comte traces the development and relationships among the sciences. In his later work Comte attempts to structure a religion based on science. In the case of Comte the aim is explicit: science not only displaces religion but becomes the basis for a new religion.
Lepenies argues that a parallel development occurs in the work of the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb. Sidney and Beatrice Webb began as advocates of a gradually evolving socialism. But they discarded their Fabian approach with the advent of Soviet communism. Toward the end of their lives in the 1930s the Webbs became advocates of Soviet communism just as Stalin was butchering millions.The reason the Webbs adopted communism is clear from an excerpt from Beatrice Webb's diary that Lepenies quotes (p. 136):
In the Soviet Union the Communist Party had become a religious order:
It has its Holy Writ, its prophets and its canonized saints; it has its Pope, yesterday Lenin and today Stalin; it has its code of conduct and its discipline; it has its creed and its inquisition. As yet it has no rites or modes of worship. Will it develop ritual as did the followers of Auguste Comte?
The same may be asked of American progressivism. It too has its saints, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, its pope, Barack Obama, its prophets and its bible, The New York Times. Despite progressivism's failure, its adherents remain committed as would the faithful of any religion.
*Wolf Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
The answer is that progressives are neither Jew nor Christian nor any other religion save one. They are Progressives. In his tour de force Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology* Wolf Lepenies outlines the rise of sociology as an attack on literature, but from the beginning sociology was posited not just as a science, but as a religion. Progressivism perpetuates the sociological tradition.
Central to Lepenies's thesis are the sociologies of Auguste Comte and Beatrice Webb. Comte was the author of the terms sociology and positivism. His early work was an attempt to locate a social physics or sociology at the apex of the sciences. To do so Comte traces the development and relationships among the sciences. In his later work Comte attempts to structure a religion based on science. In the case of Comte the aim is explicit: science not only displaces religion but becomes the basis for a new religion.
Lepenies argues that a parallel development occurs in the work of the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb. Sidney and Beatrice Webb began as advocates of a gradually evolving socialism. But they discarded their Fabian approach with the advent of Soviet communism. Toward the end of their lives in the 1930s the Webbs became advocates of Soviet communism just as Stalin was butchering millions.The reason the Webbs adopted communism is clear from an excerpt from Beatrice Webb's diary that Lepenies quotes (p. 136):
In the Soviet Union the Communist Party had become a religious order:
It has its Holy Writ, its prophets and its canonized saints; it has its Pope, yesterday Lenin and today Stalin; it has its code of conduct and its discipline; it has its creed and its inquisition. As yet it has no rites or modes of worship. Will it develop ritual as did the followers of Auguste Comte?
The same may be asked of American progressivism. It too has its saints, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, its pope, Barack Obama, its prophets and its bible, The New York Times. Despite progressivism's failure, its adherents remain committed as would the faithful of any religion.
*Wolf Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
The Town of Olive and Ulster County are abuzz about new local environmental regulations that are being pushed by the Obama administration, local Democrats and Republicrats. The environmental push is coordinated by environmental extremists who have been influencing policy prescriptions since 2008, using as a guide a 1993 book that resulted from a 1992 UN conference called Agenda 21. The Agenda 21 conference proceedings are obtainable on disk in some university research libraries. The version of Agenda 21 currently on the UN website differs from the Agenda 21 conference proceedings and the original publications. I have yet to do my homework on the details of the 1992 conference (which requires a trip to the City College of New York), so I am discussing this second and third hand.
Rumors on the Internet claim that Agenda 21 proposed to influence local government through building codes and difficult-to-understand standards that would be pushed through local governments. The explicit aim is intensive control of society to preserve the natural environment in its current form, including depopulation of rural areas and concentration of population in urban developments. The recent LEED presentation at the Birchez development is the kind of development that Agenda 21 proposes on a much larger scale, so the radical environmentalist agenda has already made initial inroads. There is no reason to think that the radical environmentalists who advocate these steps, including Congressman Maurice Hinchey, intend to move all at once. Rather, the implementation of codes and increasing control and elimination of population can proceed over decades.
Both local Republicans and Democrats were present at the Birchez presentation, and we can expect that neither party has your personal or property rights in mind. The Birchez presentation was disrupted by two protestors, including myself, whereupon four armed police officers outside their jurisdiction escorted us to our car and took down my friend's license plate. We had done nothing wrong and when a plain clothes police officer (Town of Ulster Supervisor Jim Quigley informs me that the officer was NOT from the Town of Ulster) pushed me I said to her, "Please do not touch me or I will call the police." She responded "I am the police." "Are you the police, or are you one of Hinchey's paid racketeers?" I asked. Thereupon, an attorney and four police officers followed my associate and me to the car, taking down the license plate. All the while the attorney peppered us with personal questions, trying to determine who we were. So much for freedom of speech in green-shirted Ulster County. One question: why do the Town of Ulster Police serve as Congressman private interests' muscle men and women?
This week, the Town of Olive announced a meeting on August 8 concerning a bogus strategic plan that claims to have relied on the input of citizens from the August 8 meeting but which I received on July 30. If you read it in the link below you will notice reference to input from the August 8 meeting even though August 8 is a week away. So much for the integrity of the people presenting the plan. I assure you that they did not get any input from anyone who disagrees with radical environmentalism or UN Agenda 21.
LEED, which sponsored the Birchez meeting from which I was evicted, is currently being touted by the Ulster County Democrats, who have overseen a dismal, declining local economy for the past two decades. Now, however, the county and localities have the opportunity to implement jobs-and-freedom-destroying regulations that are being proposed locally based on junk, pseudo-scientific environmental nostrums. County Executive Mike Hein was present at the Birchez meeting, but he blames Ulster County's dismal economy on state regulation like SEQRA. But why would anyone locate a plant to a county that buys into the kind of environmental extremism represented by LEED and by the Town of Olive's recent report? Ulster County has voted an extremist crank like Maurice Hinchey into office for two decades. Why would any businessman in his right mind want to locate plant here?
I received this e-mail from a concerned citizen:
Rumors on the Internet claim that Agenda 21 proposed to influence local government through building codes and difficult-to-understand standards that would be pushed through local governments. The explicit aim is intensive control of society to preserve the natural environment in its current form, including depopulation of rural areas and concentration of population in urban developments. The recent LEED presentation at the Birchez development is the kind of development that Agenda 21 proposes on a much larger scale, so the radical environmentalist agenda has already made initial inroads. There is no reason to think that the radical environmentalists who advocate these steps, including Congressman Maurice Hinchey, intend to move all at once. Rather, the implementation of codes and increasing control and elimination of population can proceed over decades.
Both local Republicans and Democrats were present at the Birchez presentation, and we can expect that neither party has your personal or property rights in mind. The Birchez presentation was disrupted by two protestors, including myself, whereupon four armed police officers outside their jurisdiction escorted us to our car and took down my friend's license plate. We had done nothing wrong and when a plain clothes police officer (Town of Ulster Supervisor Jim Quigley informs me that the officer was NOT from the Town of Ulster) pushed me I said to her, "Please do not touch me or I will call the police." She responded "I am the police." "Are you the police, or are you one of Hinchey's paid racketeers?" I asked. Thereupon, an attorney and four police officers followed my associate and me to the car, taking down the license plate. All the while the attorney peppered us with personal questions, trying to determine who we were. So much for freedom of speech in green-shirted Ulster County. One question: why do the Town of Ulster Police serve as Congressman private interests' muscle men and women?
This week, the Town of Olive announced a meeting on August 8 concerning a bogus strategic plan that claims to have relied on the input of citizens from the August 8 meeting but which I received on July 30. If you read it in the link below you will notice reference to input from the August 8 meeting even though August 8 is a week away. So much for the integrity of the people presenting the plan. I assure you that they did not get any input from anyone who disagrees with radical environmentalism or UN Agenda 21.
LEED, which sponsored the Birchez meeting from which I was evicted, is currently being touted by the Ulster County Democrats, who have overseen a dismal, declining local economy for the past two decades. Now, however, the county and localities have the opportunity to implement jobs-and-freedom-destroying regulations that are being proposed locally based on junk, pseudo-scientific environmental nostrums. County Executive Mike Hein was present at the Birchez meeting, but he blames Ulster County's dismal economy on state regulation like SEQRA. But why would anyone locate a plant to a county that buys into the kind of environmental extremism represented by LEED and by the Town of Olive's recent report? Ulster County has voted an extremist crank like Maurice Hinchey into office for two decades. Why would any businessman in his right mind want to locate plant here?
I received this e-mail from a concerned citizen:
I know you're up on this, so I thought I'd share some info with you. UN agenda 21 is coming to the Town of Olive in the form of the town's new comprehensive plan. The plan is not yet passed, and the town dems don't even want to vote on it until after the fall election. This plan was done by an outside firm using a $50,000 grant, (30 pieces of silver), from the CWC. So far, this process has been intentionally done under the radar as these wackos don't really want any input, let alone any opposition. We in Olive are planning quite a surprise for them.
The plan can be read here http://www.town.olive.ny.us/govtadm/Olive_DraftCompPlan_DRAFT_PH_Version.pdf
It was prepared by this group www.rudikoff.com
Scary reading.
People from other towns need to be able to spot how and when this process may be taking place in their own towns. Some may want to attend out public meeting on Aug 8 and get a closer look.
I'll keep you posted.
Another local correspondent adds:
A third correspondent informs me that
That is, I assume in the Olive Town Hall in Shokan. That is true. If you do not protest you have no one to blame but yourself.
Another local correspondent adds:
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) - which is working under UNAgenda21 which is spreading through local governments all across the U.S.. Here in Red Hook we are being offered a pilot program by Central Hudson to install devices in our house so they can moniitor our energy and control it. They have sent us notices, did follow-up calls and are having an informtional meeting on Tuesday. I really don't think people in the Town know what is happening but our freedoms are being taken little by little.
See the article from the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/ and listen to the video of the woman Rosa Koire speaking to a Tea Party about Agenda 21. She explains it very well.
Also see the one page description at http://americanpolicy.org/sustainable-development/agenda-21-in-one-easy-lesson.html/
A third correspondent informs me that
Public Hearing is 7 PM on August 8 - if you are not heard, you have no one to blame but yourself...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
For the past two weeks President Obama's veiled threat to withhold social security checks on August 3 has influenced the debt ceiling debate. On July 12 CBS quoted the President as saying, "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it." In fact, there are many alternatives to withholding Social Security such as furloughing employees in non-essential bureaucracies, such as the Departments of Labor, Education and Energy. Obama's use of Social Security for partisan purposes is fraudulent.
Social Security involved fraud from day one. In the 1930s, in order to convince Americans to accept it, the Democrats made two mutually contradictory claims, expressed by Professor J. Douglas Brown of Princeton University. The first claim was that Social Security is an insurance plan, secured through a trust fund, that will return a fair benefit to participants. The second claim was that Social Security was a welfare benefit that subsidizes lower-wage Americans. It did this by using a formula that provided proportionately higher benefits to the lowest salary levels. It established pay bands, and the highest percentages were paid to the lowest salary bands. Unless participants took the time to review the benefit structure, they could be easily defrauded into believing that Social Security was not a welfare plan but rather an insurance plan. Fraud was the Democrats' marketing strategy.
The public was told that there is a trust fund. In fact, Social Security was designed as a pay-as-you-go plan, essentially a pyramid scheme that depended on consistent demographic growth. But there was a depression followed by a baby boom that was followed by a baby bust. Rather than hold good on its claim that there was a trust fund, Congress proceeded to steal the funds in the Social Security trust and used them for other purposes, chiefly to win votes. Moreover, despite the lack of actuarial soundness, Congress raised benefits in the 1970s but could not fund the increased benefits. Then, it decreased benefits in 1983 for people in their twenties and younger who were scrambling to make ends meet in a permanently declining and increasingly socialist economy.
In other words, Social Security was a fraud from day one; Congress has acted in ways that would put private sector benefit sponsors into prison; indeed, it has stolen the already insufficient funds about which it has consistently lied to the public.
Now President Obama commits an additional fraud. Having scammed the American public into establishing a fraudulent program, having lied about the program's nature, having promised benefits it could not pay, having stolen the money that was put into the fund, Obama now threatens to openly breach the most elementary standard of fiduciary and moral duty to trust beneficiaries. He aims to use the fund as a partisan football. If Obama were a private pension fund manager even threatening to use pension money for purposes other than designated by the trust would be a breach of fiduciary duty.
Obama's threat to use Social Security as a partisan football is a criminal act and an impeachable one.
Social Security involved fraud from day one. In the 1930s, in order to convince Americans to accept it, the Democrats made two mutually contradictory claims, expressed by Professor J. Douglas Brown of Princeton University. The first claim was that Social Security is an insurance plan, secured through a trust fund, that will return a fair benefit to participants. The second claim was that Social Security was a welfare benefit that subsidizes lower-wage Americans. It did this by using a formula that provided proportionately higher benefits to the lowest salary levels. It established pay bands, and the highest percentages were paid to the lowest salary bands. Unless participants took the time to review the benefit structure, they could be easily defrauded into believing that Social Security was not a welfare plan but rather an insurance plan. Fraud was the Democrats' marketing strategy.
The public was told that there is a trust fund. In fact, Social Security was designed as a pay-as-you-go plan, essentially a pyramid scheme that depended on consistent demographic growth. But there was a depression followed by a baby boom that was followed by a baby bust. Rather than hold good on its claim that there was a trust fund, Congress proceeded to steal the funds in the Social Security trust and used them for other purposes, chiefly to win votes. Moreover, despite the lack of actuarial soundness, Congress raised benefits in the 1970s but could not fund the increased benefits. Then, it decreased benefits in 1983 for people in their twenties and younger who were scrambling to make ends meet in a permanently declining and increasingly socialist economy.
In other words, Social Security was a fraud from day one; Congress has acted in ways that would put private sector benefit sponsors into prison; indeed, it has stolen the already insufficient funds about which it has consistently lied to the public.
Now President Obama commits an additional fraud. Having scammed the American public into establishing a fraudulent program, having lied about the program's nature, having promised benefits it could not pay, having stolen the money that was put into the fund, Obama now threatens to openly breach the most elementary standard of fiduciary and moral duty to trust beneficiaries. He aims to use the fund as a partisan football. If Obama were a private pension fund manager even threatening to use pension money for purposes other than designated by the trust would be a breach of fiduciary duty.
Obama's threat to use Social Security as a partisan football is a criminal act and an impeachable one.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
I received this e-mail from Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. President Obama displays a shocking lack of leadership and irresponsibility in using social security, which should be secured with a designated trust, as a loaded partisan pistol.
President Obama could not be more clear, saying in his television address: “If … we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills — bills that include monthly Social Security checks [and] veterans’ benefits ….”
This is not only a moral outrage; it’s just not true.
Our legal analysis has concluded that there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law that would prevent the President from ensuring that seniors and our military heroes get the benefits they are due.If President Obama will not make it a priority to honor our commitments to those who have paid into the system their whole lives and those who have put their lives on the line for their country, we must urge Congress to take action. Please sign our Petition to Protect Seniors and Our Troops.
Reports have shown that if we default, not only would there be money enough to pay Social Security, Medicare, active duty military pay, and veterans’ affairs programs, there would still be $39 billion remaining each month for other essential services.
Let me be clear. President Obama has both the legal authority and the financial resources to ensure that our seniors and our military heroes receive the benefits they are owed, yet he continues to use scare tactics, threatening those we cherish and respect.
As our nation is faced with this impending debt crisis, our leaders in Washington still have an opportunity to cut the debt and prioritize our spending. We could save billions of dollars just by cutting funding for Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, the terrorist-led Palestinian Authority and other despotic governments that oppose us at every turn, and pro-abortion ObamaCare.
Yet, President Obama and the liberals in Congress insist that the most important cuts we could make are ending tax breaks for corporate jet owners, while abortions remain a tax-deductible medical expense.
There is still time to prioritize our spending and solve our debt crisis, but we must send a message to Congressional leaders today. Tell Congress to support legislation that prioritizes spending, eliminates tax increases, and protects seniors and our military heroes. Sign the Petition to Protect Seniors and Our Troops.
Thank you for standing with the ACLJ and taking action to protect our seniors, troops, veterans, and values. This is a critical time for the direction our nation is taking, and your voice is vital in reminding Congress of America’s priorities.
Sincerely,
Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel
ACLJ Chief Counsel
P.S. In his address to the nation, President Obama urged all Americans to “let your Member of Congress know” how you feel about the debt crisis. It is time to do just that. Forward this email to anyone you know who wants to cut our debt, not our seniors and military heroes benefits, and post our petition on Facebook and Twitter.
Gerald Celente just e-mailed his summer issue of Trends Research Journal. It is full of valuable information that offers an imaginative alternative to the legacy media, and I highly recommend it. In this issue Celente advocates direct democracy, a policy that would be a serious error. I respond in the following e-mail:
Thanks for your recent issue. I agree with much of it but not with your claim that direct democracy will end America’s economic and political decline. Your Swiss example is intriguing, especially with respect to Switzerland’s decentralization, but direct democracy is inapplicable to America because the size, culture, community, and incentives differ. You note that a Swiss canton can be as small as 14,000, but the average American congressional district is about 735,000. Switzerland’s population is less than New York City’s.
Today’s problems result from pathological incentives--privileged groups’ benefits from lobbying outweigh their costs. Included in lobbying are the same groups’ control of information, their ownership of the mass media, and their influence in the education system. Direct democracy won’t change the incentive structure that benefits special interests and inhibits the public’s ability to think rationally about events. Your own subscription fee of hundreds of dollars, which is beyond most people’s ability to pay, evidences the inability of the public to obtain good information.
Thus, in a direct democracy special interests will continue to influence politicians; the information needed for the public to make intelligent decisions about complex issues will be bounded by bad and ideologically driven education and Wall Street-influenced media; and, added to the mix will be the gullibility of the public that is easily brought to an emotional frenzy and lacks information not controlled by the state. As Madison put it in the Federalist Number 10:
…a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
The current decline in America’s economic and political system began more than a century ago with Progressivism, which introduced the referendum and the recall as part of an overall thrust toward (a) democratization coupled with (b) the installation of expert management of the economy, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank. Regulation reflected the Progressive belief that experts would be free of political pressure while, in areas experts designate, enhanced democracy would enable the public to express its interests given the structure and options that the experts delineate. The Progressive system has failed—special interests capture experts and mislead the public. The public is not capable of understanding underlying issues, even fairly simple ones like monetary policy. Environmental issues are complex and I have not met anyone who can explain the details of, for instance, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill. Are you certain that it would not have had perverse effects such as forced evictions of honest home owners? Hence, policies that harm the average American, such as Keynesian and monetarist economic theories, can be sold through the propaganda of supposed experts that convinces even the most intelligent voters. Orwell was right about language—freedom is easily painted as slavery and the public cannot figure it out.
Direct democracy will be subject to greater manipulation than the current system. Rather, a reinvention of republicanism, the less obvious solution that Hamilton and Madison proposed, and a sharp Jeffersonian limitation of government power across the board are needed. Democracy has failed. Its enhancement will be worse.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Michael Saltsman published an excellent article about Connecticut's mandated sick leave in today's Wall Street Journal. Connecticut, under Governor Dan Malloy (D), has mandated sick leave for all Connecticut employers. Saltsman shows why this policy will destroy jobs and harm the state's poorest workers. The propaganda that supported the new law used statistical means and medians, making claims such as "the average employer did not find that they had to reduce employment levels." But this use of measures of central tendency reveals misunderstanding of how economies work.
All employers are different. About 70% of Connecticut employers already gave sick leave, and 70% said in surveys that mandated sick leave would not affect them. Rather than the average, the marginal employer, such as a bodega, which is deciding whether or not to hire a part-time, low-wage employee, had been less likely to offer sick leave. This kind of employer will reduce employment and fringe benefits, including training. It will stop hiring less-qualified employees, forcing young people into European-style permanent unemployment.
The people whom Governor Malloy and the Democrats have hurt are the poorest and most vulnerable: high school dropouts who need to develop platform skills that will enable them to function in honest jobs. Some will now remain in permanent unemployment, dependent upon the State of Connecticut for welfare.
As well, the claim that low-margin employers will benefit from the mandate, made by the law's supporters, is nonsensical. Once again we see Progressives grinding the poor under their Gucci heels. They do so by claiming that they help the poor, when in reality they are helping crony socialists, labor unions, attorneys, and large employers, whose smaller competitors cannnot afford to offer benefits.
The states that have seen employment decline the most, have the most income inequality, and have the largest rates of exit, like New York, are the same states that have passed regulations that harm small employers at the expense of large, reducing the economy's dynamism by freezing out new and entrepreneurial firms and ideas. It is not surprising that academics, who benefit directly from the socialist gravy train, generally support such measures.
All employers are different. About 70% of Connecticut employers already gave sick leave, and 70% said in surveys that mandated sick leave would not affect them. Rather than the average, the marginal employer, such as a bodega, which is deciding whether or not to hire a part-time, low-wage employee, had been less likely to offer sick leave. This kind of employer will reduce employment and fringe benefits, including training. It will stop hiring less-qualified employees, forcing young people into European-style permanent unemployment.
The people whom Governor Malloy and the Democrats have hurt are the poorest and most vulnerable: high school dropouts who need to develop platform skills that will enable them to function in honest jobs. Some will now remain in permanent unemployment, dependent upon the State of Connecticut for welfare.
As well, the claim that low-margin employers will benefit from the mandate, made by the law's supporters, is nonsensical. Once again we see Progressives grinding the poor under their Gucci heels. They do so by claiming that they help the poor, when in reality they are helping crony socialists, labor unions, attorneys, and large employers, whose smaller competitors cannnot afford to offer benefits.
The states that have seen employment decline the most, have the most income inequality, and have the largest rates of exit, like New York, are the same states that have passed regulations that harm small employers at the expense of large, reducing the economy's dynamism by freezing out new and entrepreneurial firms and ideas. It is not surprising that academics, who benefit directly from the socialist gravy train, generally support such measures.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
I have heard from an anonymous source in one of the organizations that rates the degree of freedom in nations around the world that the rating for the US going to fall to approximately 10, i.e., that following the administrations of Barack H. Obama and George W. Bush America is now roughly the tenth freest country in the world, down several notches from the last rating. The source was not willing to divulge the exact ranking but when pressed said that there would be a significant downgrade.
This generation of Americans bears responsibility for putting its commitment to the two party system ahead of its commitment to liberty. That the average American's real hourly wage has not grown in 40 years is due to the ignorant belief that large-scale social programs can outperform a competitive economy in producing gains for the average American. In fact, the stagnation of the real hourly wage began in 1970 or so during the expansion of regulation that began in the late 1960s and continued into the early 1970s. We can expect further declines thanks to the ignorant policies of Democrats and Progressive Republicans and advocated by the legacy media.
In the late 1940s Friedrich von Hayek described America's path as a road to serfdom. The train is in the station. Americans are becoming serfs, just as Europeans have always been.
This generation of Americans bears responsibility for putting its commitment to the two party system ahead of its commitment to liberty. That the average American's real hourly wage has not grown in 40 years is due to the ignorant belief that large-scale social programs can outperform a competitive economy in producing gains for the average American. In fact, the stagnation of the real hourly wage began in 1970 or so during the expansion of regulation that began in the late 1960s and continued into the early 1970s. We can expect further declines thanks to the ignorant policies of Democrats and Progressive Republicans and advocated by the legacy media.
In the late 1940s Friedrich von Hayek described America's path as a road to serfdom. The train is in the station. Americans are becoming serfs, just as Europeans have always been.
Despite the legacy media's pro-Barack Obama and -Mitt Romney bias, and its exclusion of Ron Paul, Rasmussen reports that if an election were held today Paul would poll 37% to Obama's 41% (h/t Mike Marnell). Several other Republicans also poll close to Obama, but the only one who currently beats him is Romney (43% Romney versus 42% Obama). Chris Christie does almost as well as Paul (37% Christie to 44% Obama). Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is not included in the Rasmussen poll.
It is not surprising that the legacy media excludes a viable candidate like Paul from coverage because (a) announcers like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are ignorant knuckleheads who do not know why Paul opposes the Fed and (b) Paul's opposition to the Fed's existence would harm O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Chris Matthew's employers, who benefit from the Fed at public expense.
In addition, Rasmussen notes in its daily presidential tracking poll that Obama's numbers are weaker than ever despite the legacy media's incessant advocacy in his favor. Rasmussen writes:
For the first time since March, Strong Disapproval of the president has been at 40% or above for seven straight days. On Saturday, consumer confidence fell again, reaching another new two-year low. Investor confidence also fell to the lowest level since December 2009. Most voters fear that any deal on the debt ceiling debate will raise taxes too much and cut spending too little. As the negotiations continue, most also are unhappy with both the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington.
Astonishingly, Romney does and Paul does not defeat Obama in a hypothetical race. It remains a puzzle to me why the American public, which has, for the past 40 years, seen the worst economic performance in the nation's history, continues to vote for Republicrat Progressives like Obama and Romney, who have been sucking them dry financially. Americans are voting for their own economic demise. Paul would shake things up and make life miserable for crony socialists who have been extracting wealth from the public for decades in the name of helping the little guy, starting with George Soros and his fellow thieves on Wall and Broad.
It is not surprising that the legacy media excludes a viable candidate like Paul from coverage because (a) announcers like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are ignorant knuckleheads who do not know why Paul opposes the Fed and (b) Paul's opposition to the Fed's existence would harm O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Chris Matthew's employers, who benefit from the Fed at public expense.
In addition, Rasmussen notes in its daily presidential tracking poll that Obama's numbers are weaker than ever despite the legacy media's incessant advocacy in his favor. Rasmussen writes:
For the first time since March, Strong Disapproval of the president has been at 40% or above for seven straight days. On Saturday, consumer confidence fell again, reaching another new two-year low. Investor confidence also fell to the lowest level since December 2009. Most voters fear that any deal on the debt ceiling debate will raise taxes too much and cut spending too little. As the negotiations continue, most also are unhappy with both the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington.
Astonishingly, Romney does and Paul does not defeat Obama in a hypothetical race. It remains a puzzle to me why the American public, which has, for the past 40 years, seen the worst economic performance in the nation's history, continues to vote for Republicrat Progressives like Obama and Romney, who have been sucking them dry financially. Americans are voting for their own economic demise. Paul would shake things up and make life miserable for crony socialists who have been extracting wealth from the public for decades in the name of helping the little guy, starting with George Soros and his fellow thieves on Wall and Broad.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
I spent Wednesday to Friday at a seminar sponsored by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation's market-based management initiative. The seminar was in Wichita. It was a first rate experience. Without exception, the speakers, mostly Koch executives, were enlightening. The audience was made up of talented libertarian academics from around the country.
On the first full day Mr. Koch spoke with a panel of executives. It was thrilling to listen to a business genius. He has built a medium size oil services firm into a $100-billion-in-sales nimble behemoth, the largest closely held corporation in America, using the principles outlined in his book, The Science of Success. Koch Industries' management style is more advanced than other corporations'. In contrast to billionaires like George Soros who live off the Fed and immiserate the public, Koch makes money by producing value. The legacy media therefore libels Koch.
Richard Fink, a former Rutgers economics professor and president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, gave several talks about economic freedom. Charles's son Chase spoke on Friday morning about how one of the firm's subsidiaries applies market based management. As well, we heard from finance, operations and HR executives about how the firm implements Charles's market based management model. Besides being an innovative competitor Koch displays ethical standards that are beyond anything I have witnessed in academia or in the New York business community. Koch Industries is MORE ETHICAL than most higher education institutions.
The culture shock of going from upstate New York, which is devoid of industry, to Wichita, which has numerous thriving businesses including Coleman Lanterns, Cargill, and Koch, made me reflect on the reasons for New York's economic failure. In New York, state and local government spend 23.3% of gross state product while in Kansas state and local government spend 18.17%.
This was a great opportunity because academia excludes and discriminates against libertarian professors. The Koch seminar provided me with an introduction to colleagues who share my views. As well, I enjoyed learning about state of the art management practice.
On the first full day Mr. Koch spoke with a panel of executives. It was thrilling to listen to a business genius. He has built a medium size oil services firm into a $100-billion-in-sales nimble behemoth, the largest closely held corporation in America, using the principles outlined in his book, The Science of Success. Koch Industries' management style is more advanced than other corporations'. In contrast to billionaires like George Soros who live off the Fed and immiserate the public, Koch makes money by producing value. The legacy media therefore libels Koch.
Richard Fink, a former Rutgers economics professor and president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, gave several talks about economic freedom. Charles's son Chase spoke on Friday morning about how one of the firm's subsidiaries applies market based management. As well, we heard from finance, operations and HR executives about how the firm implements Charles's market based management model. Besides being an innovative competitor Koch displays ethical standards that are beyond anything I have witnessed in academia or in the New York business community. Koch Industries is MORE ETHICAL than most higher education institutions.
The culture shock of going from upstate New York, which is devoid of industry, to Wichita, which has numerous thriving businesses including Coleman Lanterns, Cargill, and Koch, made me reflect on the reasons for New York's economic failure. In New York, state and local government spend 23.3% of gross state product while in Kansas state and local government spend 18.17%.
This was a great opportunity because academia excludes and discriminates against libertarian professors. The Koch seminar provided me with an introduction to colleagues who share my views. As well, I enjoyed learning about state of the art management practice.
I recently wrote a column for the AICPA Career Insider entitled "Hiring People with Disabilities." The editor, Sukanya Mitra, forwarded quite a few positive e-mails that she has received from readers, including one from an HR executive at one of the big four accounting firms:
As a past board member of a not for profit that served the disabled – I can attest these people are quite capable and in my experience they have enriched my life far more than anything I ever thought I could do for them. Sure it’s a risk to hire people outside the “norm” – and that is where the real return on risk will pay off; it is in fact the road less traveled – and it will make all the difference.
Bravo! Thanks for the article! I have been a CPA for 30 years and CFO for 20 of those. If not for my parents and brother with disabilities I never would have been motivated to do my best. My blind father, paraplegic mother and blind brother were my inspirations. They never let their disabilities get them down. We could use more people like them in the workplace. It's all about attitude and perseverance. Thanks!
As leader of disabilities efforts at ... huge kudos to you for bringing this issue before the CPA community. At ..., we have a deep commitment to creating an enabling (by which we mean the practical steps, such as accommodations and accessibliity needed to give professionals of all abilities the same access to tools, information, and opportunities) and a disabilities inclusive culture. Accounting needs more leaders thinking like you!
Since you're someone who obviously "gets it" and a role model, I did want to point out, however, that referring to people with disabilities as "the disabled, deaf...." etc. is not considered wholly respectful in the disabilities community. The admittedly awkward term "people with disabilities" is preferred, as it puts the individual before the disability, using what's generally called "people first language". Below is a link to the ey.com page on which we've shared many of our firm's educational tools and resources in hopes of helping the business community become more knowledgeable around disabilities in the workplace. You'll find quick guides on language, etiquette, things to say and not to say to people with serious illnesses, and inclusive work habits, as well as handbooks, quizzes, videos and posters.
If you're interested in learning more about what we're doing at ..., I'd be happy to speak with you.
Thank you for all you're doing to support a more inclusive profession!
As a past board member of a not for profit that served the disabled – I can attest these people are quite capable and in my experience they have enriched my life far more than anything I ever thought I could do for them. Sure it’s a risk to hire people outside the “norm” – and that is where the real return on risk will pay off; it is in fact the road less traveled – and it will make all the difference.
Bravo! Thanks for the article! I have been a CPA for 30 years and CFO for 20 of those. If not for my parents and brother with disabilities I never would have been motivated to do my best. My blind father, paraplegic mother and blind brother were my inspirations. They never let their disabilities get them down. We could use more people like them in the workplace. It's all about attitude and perseverance. Thanks!
Your article is so timely!. I have recently hired a deaf/blind CPA that works remotely.We are still trying to fine tune the technology needed to accommodate her work style and will go to your resources that you mention in your article. I also would be happy to discuss the challenges that we face, and the challenges that we have been able to overcome. Thank you so much for publishing this article.
As leader of disabilities efforts at ... huge kudos to you for bringing this issue before the CPA community. At ..., we have a deep commitment to creating an enabling (by which we mean the practical steps, such as accommodations and accessibliity needed to give professionals of all abilities the same access to tools, information, and opportunities) and a disabilities inclusive culture. Accounting needs more leaders thinking like you!
Since you're someone who obviously "gets it" and a role model, I did want to point out, however, that referring to people with disabilities as "the disabled, deaf...." etc. is not considered wholly respectful in the disabilities community. The admittedly awkward term "people with disabilities" is preferred, as it puts the individual before the disability, using what's generally called "people first language". Below is a link to the ey.com page on which we've shared many of our firm's educational tools and resources in hopes of helping the business community become more knowledgeable around disabilities in the workplace. You'll find quick guides on language, etiquette, things to say and not to say to people with serious illnesses, and inclusive work habits, as well as handbooks, quizzes, videos and posters.
If you're interested in learning more about what we're doing at ..., I'd be happy to speak with you.
Thank you for all you're doing to support a more inclusive profession!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
 |
| This chart shows that there is little difference between Ryan's and Obama's budget proposals That the Ryan proposal created controversy is evidence of a moribund political and economic system. Chart courtesy of Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. |
The American government has not been able to live within its means for 44 of the past 50 years. An excessively democratic constitution that permits the majority to loot from those who produce wealth will not permit rational management.
I would add to Filozoff's analysis that the two party system is like a casino in which addicted gamblers liquidate their holdings. There are two types of bettors. The conservatives, who bet on failed wars, and the progressives, who bet on failed social programs. Their wagers are colorful entertainment, but the casino owners are the only ones who win in the end.
The casino owners are specific special interests, starting with Wall Street. Wall Street and a host of other special interests benefit from deficit spending and will resist, through the legacy media and through political pressure, any attempt to manage the American state rationally. That is, Wall Street sells the financing on which government depends, directly profiting from deficits. It therefore pushes for deficits via the media, which legitimizes absurd federal programs. Wall Street profits from waste because the monetary expansion necessary to fund the waste is the sole reason that there have been consistent increases in the stock market since 1940. Wall Street's interests are linked inextricably to debt and to inflation because rising stock markets stimulate demand for their products.
In a free market when stocks go up new firms enter and profits (hence stock prices) decline. Stock markets have no reason to go up over the long term unless interest rates are artificially reduced over time and/or government regulation inhibits new firms. There is nothing in the theory of economics that predicts a consistently rising stock market. No economist has predicted stock market fluctuations based on economic theory (although some have used price earnings ratios and other indicators that have nothing to do with economic theory).
The Federal Reserve Bank has consistently expanded the money supply, reducing interest rates since 1932 to below market levels, and, since 1970, this has caused the real hourly wage to stagnate (due to inflation caused by the monetary expansion) despite productivity increases. There are, of course, short exceptional periods of rate increases to reduce inflation, but the chief trend-breaking exception was in the early 1980s under Jimmy Carter's and Paul Volcker's Fed.
Two effects of artificially depressed interest rates have been excessive expansion of Wall Street and bloating of stock and real estate prices at the expense of the real hourly wage. As well, there has been misallocation in myriad other ways, to include dislocations that have come about because of Milton Friedman's policy, implemented by Richard M. Nixon, of separating the dollar from the international gold standard and so expanding the dollar's role as a reserve currency around the world. This has made the dollar more valuable than it should be, resulting in the exodus of manufacturing.
A Historical Perspective
The Ryan proposal hearkens back to a proposal of the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton. In 1795, right before he resigned, Hamilton wrote "Report on a Plan for the Further Support of Public Credit." In it he laid out a plan to extinguish the federal debt over 30 years. According to Hamilton's biographer, Ron Chernow (p. 480):
He wanted new taxes passed and old ones made permanent, and he showed painstakingly that he had striven to reduce debt as speedily as possible...Hamilton's proposals were rolled into a bill passed by Congress within little more than a month of his departure as treasury secretary.
In fact, the large federal debt incurred from the Revolutionary War was not extinguished within 30 years, in part because of the War of 1812. As the statistics on Treasury Direct show, the national debt did not come close to being extinguished until Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828. Then, it took eight years for him to abolish the Second Bank of the United States, the forerunner of today's Fed. In 1836, the year Jackson abolished that era's Fed, the national debt had been reduced to $37,513. Abolition of the debt went hand in hand with abolition of the Fed. That did not end the federal debt, as subsequent presidents increased it. But the 19th century did not see consistent expansion of debt because Jackson abolished the Second Bank in 1836.
Conclusion
Currently, there is one candidate who favors abolishing the Fed: Ron Paul. In addition, there is a candidate who favors introducing competition into the monetary system: Gary Johnson. Unless Americans choose to think outside the Fox and elect either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the radical incompetence that we have been witnessing will continue to the bitter end. Meanwhile, I am betting on gold and silver.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Where liberty is, there is my country." America is no longer free nor liberal in the way that Franklin would have used the word. Mark Joppa posted this on Facebook. While it is probably advantageous to be considered loyal opposition, I'm not clear that America is now much better than the Hapsburg monarchy that my great-grandparents left in the 1880s. The Hapsburg Empire, like America today, was Progressive. It was a monarchy, not a republic, and the dictatorship was of an emperor, not majority rule. The differences are negligible.
Friday, July 15, 2011
There are philosophical and leadership crises in America today. The effects are whispered around the world: China now outstrips America economically and with respect to innovation; America is in decline. The causes are a decayed political system and a media that nourishes it. Both need to be replaced.
Neither Hamilton nor Jefferson, Washington's Secretaries of Treasury and State, could remain in office today. Both had sexual affairs while in Washington's cabinet. Henry Knox, Washington's War Secretary, would not get the appointment today because of his corpulent visage. Better to give the post to a banal bureaucrat like Leon Panetta than to a man like Knox who dragged 50 cannon across the Berkshires to defend Dorchester Heights. Television has contributed to American decline along with special interests' extraction of advantages via the two party system. The brainwashing necessary to diminish the American spirit comes from America's education system and the media. The American public has elected to allow totalitarian government to replace freedom, competition and self reliance.
Hamilton and Jefferson were the two best cabinet officials in the nation's history, and they predated mass market news. Markets began to expand in the mid nineteenth century with the advent of the railroad. As they expanded, the quality of the American government declined. The turning points were the Progressive era, the expansion of the eduction system, and the advent of "objective journalism." Walter Lippmann despaired of the possibility of an intelligent public opinion, and John Dewey responded with the claim that the media would draw cartoons for a public incapable of rational understanding. Hamilton never had such contempt for the American public as did Dewey.
Now, with instant communication and endless information about government officials' personal lives, the American philosophy has declined to the stupidity witnessed in 2008-11, when between $12.4 and $36 trillion in subsidies have been handed to the financial industry, supposedly to save "the economy." Not even the quacks advocating this policy on television claimed that this would help the real hourly wage. Rather, they defined "the economy," as banks' profitability. What is the meaning of the word "economy" as used on television? What "economy" besides the stock market and the profitability of banks is left after such subsidization? The American people have elected to become Wall Street's serfs under the absurd claim that their immiseration and economic subjugation are necessary to make them economically secure.
Radio and television's large audience sizes and their announcers' distance from their receivers give them credibility. Television and radio lack morality, intellect, accuracy, truthfulness, or competence--they merely offer the security that a large number of people, quite possibly the very same fools repeatedly duped in recent speculative bubbles, think just like the announcer. On television, the announcer must meet a standard of physical appearance, nothing more. There is no standard for radio save, perhaps, quick wits. The choice of material, the positions, or the quality of analysis need only satisfy the station's owners' and managers' interests.
Television trumpeted the crippling bailouts and subsidies using superstitious claims about the "economy's" being dependent on the subsidization of speculators. Jefferson turned in his grave. The reasoning was dumb enough that a portion of the public recoiled, forming a Tea Party. But the Tea Party runs in circles as Fox deflects and manipulates it, trumpeting Trojan Horse candidates like Michele Bachmann.
I favor an alliance between social conservatives and economic libertarians. However, the history of that alliance has been humiliating to those who believe in less government. There is NO EVIDENCE that Michele Bachmann is anything more than an economic royalist--a Rockefeller Republican. Economic liberals ought not to support her.
There are two issues that serve as litmus tests with respect to a candidate's favoring small government: monetary policy and the bailout. Bachmann seems to pass the latter, which is fine but unconvincing because it is three years late and $12.4 trillion short. With respect to constraints on the Fed and monetary policy, Bachmann remains silent.
With the sole exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the alternative Republican candidates, starting with Mitt Romney, are in favor of big government. That the Republicans favor such candidates, whose ideas guarantee continued American decline, is a result of their choice to mentally subjugate themselves to Fox.
It is time that the Tea Party thought outside GE's MS-NBC, outside Sumner Redstone's CBS, outside Warren Buffett's Washington Post. Open a copy of Ludwig von Mises's Human Action or Murray N. Rothbard's Mystery of Banking and think outside the Fox.
 |
| Could Henry Knox be Secretary of Defense today? |
Hamilton and Jefferson were the two best cabinet officials in the nation's history, and they predated mass market news. Markets began to expand in the mid nineteenth century with the advent of the railroad. As they expanded, the quality of the American government declined. The turning points were the Progressive era, the expansion of the eduction system, and the advent of "objective journalism." Walter Lippmann despaired of the possibility of an intelligent public opinion, and John Dewey responded with the claim that the media would draw cartoons for a public incapable of rational understanding. Hamilton never had such contempt for the American public as did Dewey.
Now, with instant communication and endless information about government officials' personal lives, the American philosophy has declined to the stupidity witnessed in 2008-11, when between $12.4 and $36 trillion in subsidies have been handed to the financial industry, supposedly to save "the economy." Not even the quacks advocating this policy on television claimed that this would help the real hourly wage. Rather, they defined "the economy," as banks' profitability. What is the meaning of the word "economy" as used on television? What "economy" besides the stock market and the profitability of banks is left after such subsidization? The American people have elected to become Wall Street's serfs under the absurd claim that their immiseration and economic subjugation are necessary to make them economically secure.
Radio and television's large audience sizes and their announcers' distance from their receivers give them credibility. Television and radio lack morality, intellect, accuracy, truthfulness, or competence--they merely offer the security that a large number of people, quite possibly the very same fools repeatedly duped in recent speculative bubbles, think just like the announcer. On television, the announcer must meet a standard of physical appearance, nothing more. There is no standard for radio save, perhaps, quick wits. The choice of material, the positions, or the quality of analysis need only satisfy the station's owners' and managers' interests.
Television trumpeted the crippling bailouts and subsidies using superstitious claims about the "economy's" being dependent on the subsidization of speculators. Jefferson turned in his grave. The reasoning was dumb enough that a portion of the public recoiled, forming a Tea Party. But the Tea Party runs in circles as Fox deflects and manipulates it, trumpeting Trojan Horse candidates like Michele Bachmann.
I favor an alliance between social conservatives and economic libertarians. However, the history of that alliance has been humiliating to those who believe in less government. There is NO EVIDENCE that Michele Bachmann is anything more than an economic royalist--a Rockefeller Republican. Economic liberals ought not to support her.
There are two issues that serve as litmus tests with respect to a candidate's favoring small government: monetary policy and the bailout. Bachmann seems to pass the latter, which is fine but unconvincing because it is three years late and $12.4 trillion short. With respect to constraints on the Fed and monetary policy, Bachmann remains silent.
With the sole exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the alternative Republican candidates, starting with Mitt Romney, are in favor of big government. That the Republicans favor such candidates, whose ideas guarantee continued American decline, is a result of their choice to mentally subjugate themselves to Fox.
It is time that the Tea Party thought outside GE's MS-NBC, outside Sumner Redstone's CBS, outside Warren Buffett's Washington Post. Open a copy of Ludwig von Mises's Human Action or Murray N. Rothbard's Mystery of Banking and think outside the Fox.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
In 1791 there was a debate as to whether Congress should establish a central bank. As Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton conceived of it, wrote a report on the bank supporting it, and proposed the legislation. The bank was approved by Congress, but the vote was entirely regional. The Southern delegation opposed it while the larger Northern delegation supported it. Governor Henry Lee of Virginia proposed that Virginia start a competing bank. Referring to the US Congress as a "foreign legislature" Secretary of State Jefferson wrote the following to Governor Lee, quoted on page 352 of Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton:
The power of erecting banks and corporations was not given to the general government; it remains then with the state itself. For any person to recognize a foreign legislature in a case belonging to the state itself is an act of treason against the state. And whosoever shall do any act under color of authority of a foreign legislature--whether by signing notes, issuing or passing them, acting as director, cashier or in any other office relating to it, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and suffer death accordingly by the judgment of the state courts. This is the only opposition worthy or our state and the only kind which can be effectual...I really wish that this or nothing should be done.
In other words, Jefferson would have had the governor of Virginia execute Ben Bernanke. Am I missing something, or wasn't Jefferson the greatest of the Founding Fathers?
The power of erecting banks and corporations was not given to the general government; it remains then with the state itself. For any person to recognize a foreign legislature in a case belonging to the state itself is an act of treason against the state. And whosoever shall do any act under color of authority of a foreign legislature--whether by signing notes, issuing or passing them, acting as director, cashier or in any other office relating to it, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and suffer death accordingly by the judgment of the state courts. This is the only opposition worthy or our state and the only kind which can be effectual...I really wish that this or nothing should be done.
In other words, Jefferson would have had the governor of Virginia execute Ben Bernanke. Am I missing something, or wasn't Jefferson the greatest of the Founding Fathers?
I was in the gym the other day and someone had turned on CNN. Announcer Jack Cafferty droned about how terrible Michele Bachmann is, how the Republicans are in trouble, and how all candidates ought to be Progressives. It occurred to me that CNN is not a news channel. My wife replied that it is more informative than an entertainment show. She was wrong. CNN is less informative than Mickey Mouse. Listening to six stories about gay rights in a row when the nation is in the clutches of rent extracting special interests and a financial system that is sucking Americans dry financially is not news. The story about the woman who allegedly killed her baby and then got off is not news either. CNN distracts you. You get more news from books. The chatter of the hour is nonsense.
 | ||
| My wife Freda stands outside our rehabbed cottage |
 |
| A 1950s Levittown Family |
 |
| The Ashokan Reservoir Is Two Minutes Away |
Nearby Woodstock, Rhinebeck, New Paltz and Kingston offer culture, from Dweezil Zappa's upcoming concert at Woodstock's Bearsville complex (which also houses The Bear, a restaurant that has been favorably reviewed in The Boston Globe and The New York Times) to a Shakespeare summer stock theater about 3 minutes from our cottage to great restaurants like Le Canard Enchaine in Kingston. Residents in West Shokan through the decades have included Mary Margaret MacBride, the first lady of radio (and friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, who used to visit her here), the left-wing lawyer William Kuntsler, and in neighboring towns billionaire Bruce Ratner, and the late William T. Golden, financier and founder of the National Science Foundation. My wife's Tai 'Chi instructor, who lives in nearby Saugerties, is a noted jazz musician with eight grammies.
We paid a huge price for our cottage: $77,000. We spent a larger sum rehabbing it plus a lot of blood sweat and tears. But now we live mortgage free on a professor's salary.
The problems that rural communities face, and the price they pay in mortality rates, are the direct result of big government progressivism. One of the few manufacturing firms left in our area has been under assault from the Department of Labor for years and may have to close because of pension liabilities that it is being forced to pay to employees of other firms under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act. High taxes and the dollar's use as a global reserve currency (in lieu of a gold standard) have induced poverty in rural America. A dismal educational system that brainwashes youngsters in left-wing ideology rather than educating them has led to the absence of employers interested in the region. The public response here in Olive has been to expand government further, creating silly make-work jobs that destroy rather than create value, the failed nostrum still advocated in The Wall Street Journal's pages by crackpot economists with Ivy League pedigrees and nothing of importance to say.
Progressivism has been great for affluent newcomers such as my wife and me, but has hammered people with roots in the region. Many retirees and their children have been forced to leave. So much the better for millionaires who can buy houses on the cheap. It is not surprising that forced sellers die young, victims of economic quackery, the Federal Reserve Bank and the United States's depraved political and economic system.
I have lost some respect for The Wall Street Journal. Throwing around statistics without grasp of particular circumstances is part and parcel of Progressivism's failure.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
I am reading Ron Chernow's excellent biography Alexander Hamilton. On page 300 he discusses Hamilton's first Report on Public Credit which he wrote as the first Secretary of the Treasury:
In the report's final section, Hamilton reiterated that a well-funded debt would be a 'national blessing' that would protect American prosperity. He feared this statement would be misconstrued as a call for a perpetual public debt--and that is exactly what happened. For the rest of his life, he was to express dismay at what he saw as a deliberate distortion of his views. His opponents, he claimed, neglected a critical passage of his report in which he wrote that he 'ardently wishes to see it incorporated as a fundamental maxim in the system of public credit of the United States that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.' The secretary regarded this 'as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal.' Three years later Hamilton testily reminded the public that he had advocated extinguishing the debt 'in the very first communication' which he 'ever made on the subject of the public debt, in that very report which contains the expressions [now] tortured into an advocation [sic] of the doctrine that public debts are public blessings.' Indeed, in Hamilton's writings his warnings about oppressive debt vastly outnumber his pens to public debt as a source of liquid capital. Five years after his fist report, still fuming, he warned that progressive accumulation of debt 'is perhaps the NATURAL DISEASE of all Governments. And it is not easy to conceive anything more likely than this to lead to great and convulsive revolutions of Empire.'
And, of course, Robert Rubin and Timothy Geithner are no Alexander Hamiltons. They are more Madoff and Ponzi than Hamilton.
In the report's final section, Hamilton reiterated that a well-funded debt would be a 'national blessing' that would protect American prosperity. He feared this statement would be misconstrued as a call for a perpetual public debt--and that is exactly what happened. For the rest of his life, he was to express dismay at what he saw as a deliberate distortion of his views. His opponents, he claimed, neglected a critical passage of his report in which he wrote that he 'ardently wishes to see it incorporated as a fundamental maxim in the system of public credit of the United States that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.' The secretary regarded this 'as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal.' Three years later Hamilton testily reminded the public that he had advocated extinguishing the debt 'in the very first communication' which he 'ever made on the subject of the public debt, in that very report which contains the expressions [now] tortured into an advocation [sic] of the doctrine that public debts are public blessings.' Indeed, in Hamilton's writings his warnings about oppressive debt vastly outnumber his pens to public debt as a source of liquid capital. Five years after his fist report, still fuming, he warned that progressive accumulation of debt 'is perhaps the NATURAL DISEASE of all Governments. And it is not easy to conceive anything more likely than this to lead to great and convulsive revolutions of Empire.'
And, of course, Robert Rubin and Timothy Geithner are no Alexander Hamiltons. They are more Madoff and Ponzi than Hamilton.
Monday, July 11, 2011
I spent a few minutes Googling +Michele Bachmann +"Federal Reserve Bank" and found little. Bachmann's website says that she is for cutting government and debt, but, like the fatuous debate about the Glass Steagall Act, saying you are for cutting taxes is beside the point. (The Glass Steagall Act is a matter of irrelevance to the bubbles that have riddled the American economy since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.) Ronald Reagan said he was for cutting taxes, but through supply side cum Keynesian economics he created a thirty-year bubble whose bursting we now see. Bachmann says that she is for less debt, but Reagan said he was for less government; he did not really cut government (his increases in defense spending compensated for his cuts in domestic spending).
In short, the Republicans have lied for 30 years. They have repeatedly said that they favor small government and free markets, but there was no significant reduction in government or in regulation during any of the Republican administrations. George W. Bush expanded government, setting the stage for Obama's return to the pre-Reagan government expansion pattern.
The only way to limit government is to prevent money-printing. This would have the side effect of forcing some manufacturing back to the United States as the treasury bonds that are currently used by foreign banks to prop up the dollar would not be issued with the current profligacy. In turn, stock markets and Wall Street as well as government would shrink. The mess that a century of Progressivism has created would begin to be sorted out. It would not be pleasant, but if we do not do something now there will be worse hell to pay when the dollar finally collapses.
Bachmann is smart enough to have ideas about the Fed, but her Website seems to be silent, and she has not responded to my earlier letter. Unless she is willing to discuss a policy that would contain or eliminate the Fed, her small government credentials are bogus. She is another Progressive masquerading as a friend of small government.
In short, the Republicans have lied for 30 years. They have repeatedly said that they favor small government and free markets, but there was no significant reduction in government or in regulation during any of the Republican administrations. George W. Bush expanded government, setting the stage for Obama's return to the pre-Reagan government expansion pattern.
The only way to limit government is to prevent money-printing. This would have the side effect of forcing some manufacturing back to the United States as the treasury bonds that are currently used by foreign banks to prop up the dollar would not be issued with the current profligacy. In turn, stock markets and Wall Street as well as government would shrink. The mess that a century of Progressivism has created would begin to be sorted out. It would not be pleasant, but if we do not do something now there will be worse hell to pay when the dollar finally collapses.
Bachmann is smart enough to have ideas about the Fed, but her Website seems to be silent, and she has not responded to my earlier letter. Unless she is willing to discuss a policy that would contain or eliminate the Fed, her small government credentials are bogus. She is another Progressive masquerading as a friend of small government.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll indicates that President Obama is vulnerable to a Republican bid. According to Friday's poll, 46% of the public at least somewhat approve of Obama's performance while 53% at least somewhat disapprove. A minority has consistently strongly opposed him. The difference been those who strongly disapprove of Obama and those who strongly approve has been negative for some time and the difference is currently a whopping 19% (40% strongly disapprove and just over half, 21%, strongly approve). But independent voters are the question. If 51% at least somewhat approve then Obama will likely win against a Republican. In my own case, I am not certain that I would vote for a generic Republican like Mitt Romney or Michele Bachmann; rather, I would vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Obama's weak to modest poll results fly in the face of incredible residual pro-Obama bias in the legacy media. Obama's policies have completely failed. His money printing, the stimulus, and his preposterous health reform act have failed to restore economic growth and have failed to capture the public's support. A majority of the public continues to disapprove of the ill-conceived health reform act. Nevertheless, the legacy media continues to put a positive spin on his performance and continues to distort economic events surrounding the bailout, the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank, the refusal of Congress to expose the Fed to an audit, and the massive mal-investment that has characterized the American eoconomy for decades and that is slowly leading to an economic and political collapse.
Obama's mess is much bigger than Bush's, but the legacy media says otherwise. Common sense and the bare unemployment statistic expose the legacy media's lies to simple falsification. Obama's numbers, then, suggest the legacy media's continuing but waning influence. If Obama's policies, which have failed worse than Bush's, were exposed to the same media spin that Bush's were, Obama's strong approval rating would like be at 4%. That they are at 21% suggests that a good portion of the public is committed to the legacy media's pro-Wall Street and pro-big government ideology. That an additional 25% somewhat approves of Obama shows that, though waning, the pro-Wall Street media still influences many Americans. But their numbers are getting thinner. In the 1940s, the pro-Wall Street media was able to manipulate 60.8% to support Roosevelt's failed New Deal; today, the number taking the legacy media's side is significantly less, about 46%.
Obama's weak to modest poll results fly in the face of incredible residual pro-Obama bias in the legacy media. Obama's policies have completely failed. His money printing, the stimulus, and his preposterous health reform act have failed to restore economic growth and have failed to capture the public's support. A majority of the public continues to disapprove of the ill-conceived health reform act. Nevertheless, the legacy media continues to put a positive spin on his performance and continues to distort economic events surrounding the bailout, the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank, the refusal of Congress to expose the Fed to an audit, and the massive mal-investment that has characterized the American eoconomy for decades and that is slowly leading to an economic and political collapse.
Obama's mess is much bigger than Bush's, but the legacy media says otherwise. Common sense and the bare unemployment statistic expose the legacy media's lies to simple falsification. Obama's numbers, then, suggest the legacy media's continuing but waning influence. If Obama's policies, which have failed worse than Bush's, were exposed to the same media spin that Bush's were, Obama's strong approval rating would like be at 4%. That they are at 21% suggests that a good portion of the public is committed to the legacy media's pro-Wall Street and pro-big government ideology. That an additional 25% somewhat approves of Obama shows that, though waning, the pro-Wall Street media still influences many Americans. But their numbers are getting thinner. In the 1940s, the pro-Wall Street media was able to manipulate 60.8% to support Roosevelt's failed New Deal; today, the number taking the legacy media's side is significantly less, about 46%.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
 |
| Obama's Debt Mess is Bigger than Bush's. And this doesn't include the Bush/Obama Fed's 2009-11 400% monetary expansion. Chart Courtesy of US Government Spending.com. |
Anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy knows that empire building and waste are rules, not exceptions. As well, it is evident that numerous federal departments are complete failures and should be terminated. These include the Departments of Education, Labor and Energy.
As well, we currently maintain more than twenty military bases in Germany. What, exactly, are we defending Germany from? Vladimir Putin? Fidel Castro? Why can't Japan defend itself? It seems to me that the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans can either pay us for maintaining bases in Guam, South Korea and elsewhere in Asia or, better yet, do it themselves. A list of US military bases around the world is here. There are over 1,000 that cost us over $100 billion per year. Do we really need so many bases? Our main opponents now are terrorists who are mobile, incognito, work in microscopic units and are not susceptible to orthodox warfare. I appreciate the importance of security, but do bases in Denmark and Spain really contribute to our or to Denmark's and Spain's defense? Are they relevant to post-modern warfare? It seems that something is rotten in Denmark, and in Washington, if the President and Congress view a debt ceiling of $14 trillion as a "crisis" but view 1,000 military bases, including many in Germany and Denmark, as sacrosanct.
The Washington crew, including Boehner, Obama and Reid, remind me of my ex-wife who, with a $30,000 credit card balance in 1991, considered her lack of Mazda Miata a "crisis" and went out and bought one for an additional then-$26,000 in debt. American politicians have a multitude of Mazda Miatas: dole programs, bridges to nowhere, failed educational systems, failed energy policies and bloat in the military.
The American people have not gone brain dead. They do not agree that indebtedness nearly equal to the nation's gross domestic product of almost $15 trillion is desirable. According to Rasmussen, fifty-five percent of likely voters believe that cuts in government will help the economy. As well, according to Rasmussen:
Just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters think tax increases help the economy. Fifty-four percent (54%) disagree and believe tax hikes hurt the economy...Most voters have said tax increases hurt the economy in every survey but one since July 2008.
If so, why do Americans continue to elect profligates like Boehner, Obama and Reid, who think every military base is a Mazda Miata? My guess is that the legacy media, pawns of Wall Street, bamboozle the public.
Social Security provides a benefit that is a tiny percentage of the average contributor's future value of lifetime contributions. There are specific reasons, including its welfare component and the 21st century workers' subsidization of 20th century retirees as well as Congress's use of Social Security funds for other purposes. But given Social Security's failure, why do 21st century Americans want it? Why is there no discussion of voluntarization? If Social Security is 20% of the federal budget, even authoritarians like America's Progressives should be glad to allow citizens to opt out of the failed program. But they aren't. Every opportunity for authoritarian compulsion, badly designed programs and ignorant violence is a Progressive Mazda Miata.
Moreover, if few Americans believe that tax increases help the economy, why is John Boehner ready to capitulate to the Miata-loving Progressives in the debt ceiling discussions?
The debt ceiling crisis is an opportunity to propose voluntarization of Social Security, the elimination of the Departments of Education, Labor, and Energy, the elimination of half of the military bases and the elimination of one third of government operations costs, including in the Pentagon. If Boehner does not take advantage of it, the Republicans need to go.
Friday, July 8, 2011
John Tate from the Campaign for Liberty has e-mailed that Republicrat Congressman John Boehner is thumbing his nose at the Tea Party and "planning to cave in to Barack Obama's demands for a trillion dollars in tax increases in exchange for mostly phony spending and tax cuts in order to raise the debt ceiling." The federal government is a value-destruction machine that does not contribute to our welfare. It should be slashed by 80%.
Tate adds:
Senator Rand Paul has joined over 100 representatives and a handful of other senators in signing the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" pledge to demand that any effort to raise the debt ceiling be rejected unless the federal government is forced to change its ways.
I want to urge you to complete your "Cut, Cap and Balance" pledge that Campaign for Liberty will fax to your representative and senators today before the critical showdown in Congress on raising the debt ceiling takes place in a few short weeks.
Factoring in the Big Government programs and social welfare spending already "locked in," the average American is on the hook for nearly $800,000.
Friends, it is time to join the Secession Party.
Dear HBO: I am in the middle of Ron Chernow's 2004 "Alexander Hamilton." I loved the "John Adams" mini-series; however, Hamilton would make for a much better subject than Adams. Hamilton's story has everything: sex scandals (likely involving Hamilton's own birth and his mother's repeated love affairs as well as Hamilton himself), rags to riches, bravery in war, brilliant ambition, a sweeping vision that created the Constitution and the United States, political intrigue, and a duel for honor, ending in Hamilton's death.
I am stunned that you have not turned Chernow's book into mini-series!
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
I am stunned that you have not turned Chernow's book into mini-series!
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
