It’s Because OBAMA Didn’t Build Anything


Powerful politician Percy Sutton admitted to helping Obama get into Harvard. Harvard’s own publication describes the Affirmative Action system in place when Obama was promoted to president of the Law Review.

Obama made the headlines last week, giving a speech from which a quote has been plucked and repeated, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

This is yet another example of a quote missing the context of the speech around it. We need that context, in order to understand where Obama was coming from:

“I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

What this shows, that people need to understand about him, is that Obama never built anything, in his own life. He never really accomplished anything, himself. There really was always someone giving him a hand up, a back door to sneak through, et cetera.

Even more than most of the Political Class, he has just been socially promoted throughout life, and has no idea what it is like to create wealth for society with your own hands, his own risk, his own ideas, or any other genuine effort.

Remember, Obama has bragged that he wouldn’t be where he is without Affirmative Action:

“As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

He had to worry about being stigmatized, because he didn’t accomplish entry into Harvard or Law Review. Affirmative Action gives people things they haven’t yet earned, robbing them of any opportunity to do so in the first place. So he feels impostor syndrome, but projects it on the rest of us.

Likewise, he didn’t fight his way to the presidency after a hard career, like some politicians. Even the better-informed among his supporters know he was the beneficiary of King-makers in the Chicago Machine and the national Democratic Party. So, even aside from the greater productivity of life in outside of government, he has no experience with creating his own success within government. Powerful men decided to make him their guy…and he want from unknown, to headline speech-giver at a presidential convention already touted as a future president, in one day. And it’s hard to imagine that his Senate seat wasn’t bought for him, the way it was to be sold to his successor.

And he projects that on you and me, on every productive-class American in the private sector.

Not only has he never created a business on his own, Barack Obama never even struggled to land a tough job he had to work hard to keep. Remember that job you hated, but still did well in order to make a living or gain experience? The one you tried so hard to land, based on your own merits? He doesn’t.

He has been socially promoted through life, and that’s all he can imagine for the rest of us. He knows his own intelligence had nothing to do with his success, and he never had a chance to work hard and see what came of that…so how could he imagine that these things matter?

I have accomplished things when I made smart decisions. I’ve failed when I made dumb mistakes. I’ve built things because I worked harder than anyone else, and lost things because I didn’t work hard enough. All of you who have lived outside the political class have, at some point in your life, done these things. Hell, many people in government have, at some point, in a lesser way.

But even the official Obama life story is one of being handed everything by a paternalistic collective.

So how can you expect him to understand anything else?

Advertisements

Martha Stewart Did Nothing Wrong


Martha Stewart, apparently headed to prison after her trial and conviction for the healthy practice of "insider trading"

Martha Stewart was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for doing something that actually helps society more than all of her home-making advice, combined.

What makes something good, or bad, is not whether it’s legal or banned. Anyone who disagrees can go explain it to Mr. Schindler.

The difference between right and wrong, good and bad, is whether you violate another person’s property (including their body). This is the one universal “good versus evil” shared by all societies and religions. All of the rest is popular social habits turned into taboos over time, be it covering random body parts (faces in Afghanisan, breasts in America), burping (bad in America, good in Bahrain), or mullets (it’s not that they’re ugly, it’s that they now symbolize a now-unpopular subculture).

Martha Stewart was convicted for doing something illegal that is not bad, and should not be banned. In fact, using any information you consensually obtain, in order to help you make economic decisions, is a good thing. Our economy would be healthier if “inside” information were built into the price of stocks sooner, instead of implosions coming out of nowhere, or companies with a great future having to struggle for capital because it’s illegal to use a “stock tip”.

The whole point of a stock market is to help distribute investments and capital more efficiently than any “expert” or central planner ever could. This requires the participants to be not only responsible for their own risks, but free to make their decisions on any basis they choose.

“Insider trading” needs to be restored as a matter of pride, like having a hot tip on a sporting event, not wrongfully condemned as another arbitrary taboo, repressing society.

Bernie Madoff did something objectively wrong, claiming to be investing people’s money while he was actually just paying off previous investors. That’s evil even when the government makes it legal and calls it a retirement plan…

But what Martha Stewart did was objectively good, using knowledge she had to convey price information to society, even though the government says it’s illegal and calls it “insider trading”.

How Green Food Causes World Hunger — Eggs


Do those sociopathic EU bureaucrats really think farmers can meet 500,000,000 people's egg needs...this way?

“Organic” and other “Green” agriculture and food production is already widely understood to be causing food shortages, and skyrocketing food prices, worldwide, but it’s often too subtle and abstract an effect for regular people to really understand.

But now we have a very stark, clear example, a crisis caused by imposing “green” techniques on everyone:

Forcing ALL eggs in the EU to be Free Range has made keeping up with demand impossible.

Eggs are one of the least expensive sources of healthy protein. It’s easy for poorer people to get, and in many foods they eat…and right now, in Europe, eggs cost up to 250% more than usual for this time of year.

Why? Because the entire European Union has banned all normal, efficient means of egg production.

Instead of the very politically-incorrect rows of chicken cages, in which the eggs are laid above a conveyor belt, all European egg producers are now forced to deal with “free range” hens, tremendously increasing the cost and slowing down production of eggs, and even harming the “environment”, by requiring far more space to produce.

The result? Eggs that cost three times as much,  pricing themselves and food made with them out of the reach of many of the people who would benefit the most.

And the EU wonders why their economy is collapsing.

“Green” techniques divert food to other uses like biofuels, and because they’re so much less efficient, use more land and resources to produce less food. They are also more dangerous, with more chance of carrying pathogens to your dinner table. And, on top of everything else, they can even increase your carbon footprint.

But here we have a concrete example of how the wasted space, lower production, and riskier techniques of “green” agriculture harms everyone.

How Government Stimulus Caused the Great Depression


All through the Roaring Twenties, government spending declined, letting the economy grow. Immediately upon entering office, Hoover began increasing spending and regulation, stagnating the US economy, a pattern followed by the next two presidents. The economy did not truly recover until that behavior ended, with the revolt against Truman in 1946.

Killing the Economy to Create Jobs


Any job created for the sake of employment is as bad as having some people dig holes, while others fill those holes back in...no matter how pretty the description given.

Neither the government, nor any business in the private sector, should be specifically trying to “create jobs”.

That is like noticing that a healthy, fit man’s heartbeat is slower than a fat, sick man’s heartbeat, and therefore going around giving people drugs to slow their hearts: You are treating the symptom, but aggravating the problem.

Job creation must always be a natural symptom of a healthy economy.  Anyone trying to create a job for the sake of employing someone is only increasing inefficiency, leading to more lost jobs in the long run.

That is the sort of “stimulus” that got us into this mess in 2008, and exactly what is keeping us in it.

Makework jobs kill the economy the same way drugging fat, infected people to slow their hearts would kill human beings.

How the Deficit Depresses Our Economy


Our national debt, financed by treasury notes, bills, and bonds, depresses the economy by destroying private investment

The political class insists that we can’t cut our massive, $1,600,000,000,000 Federal deficit, because it would depress the economy and cost jobs. Their excuse is that the private economy is not creating jobs and wealth, so the government must take up the slack.

But what mysterious burden, on our economy, is preventing the basic private investment that creates wealth, allowing the economy to grow, jobs to be naturally created, all of us to prosper?

Ironically, it’s that very deficit.

How?

It’s because of the way the deficit must be financed:

The government has to raise every penny of the deficit it spends, by issuing treasury notes, bonds, and so on. Private people buy these, imagining they are “investing” by doing so. But real investment creates wealth, while government securities just finance deficit spending, as a debt that will be paid back by your grandchildren, as gigantic tax burdens.

This year, the Federal government will have to convince people to “invest” 1.6 trillion dollars in government notes and bonds, to pay for its deficit. Every single penny of that would, otherwise, have been invested in private enterprise, to create wealth.

Imagine if the private economy got an “extra” trillion-plus dollars of investment, next year. The massive growth in wealth and jobs is almost unimaginable.

Now imagine if, instead, the private economy had a trillion-plus in investment REMOVED from it by government. The massive loss in growth and jobs is entirely imaginable, because it’s what we’ve been suffering since the deficit increased almost one trillion dollars in 2009.

Every dollar the government spends steals one dollar from the private economy…either directly, by taking it through taxes, or indirectly, by financing it through a bond or note that steals that dollar from private investment.

The Fake Spending Cuts


If they're so interested in balancing the budget, why are they increasing spending and calling it a cut?

The Federal government has not had an actual, official budget for many months.

When it was time for a new budget last year, the one proposed had so much pork and needless spending hikes in it that even the Democrats who controlled both houses could not get it passed.

And neither they nor the Republicans have succeeded in passing a budget, to this day. They have instead, kept the government funded with “Continuing Resolutions”, temporary agreements to “continue” spending at current rates while the budget is debated.

In 1995, such continuing resolutions actually helped reduce the National Debt, because they held to current levels of spending for months, instead of the next year’s increases.

And people assumed that this is what was going on this year…but they underestimated just how corrupt the Congress has become. Last year the Democrats controlling Congress did not agree to traditional Continuing Resolutions, maintaining current spending…their “resolutions” were actually based on the proposed budget that most members of Congress were rejecting.

Flash forward to the last few weeks:

The Republican leadership has made a big deal about having made two billion dollars in “cuts” from the Continuing Resolution…and when that one ended, six more billion from the next CR.

They have been claiming credit for “ten billion dollars in cuts”. This would, if it were true, be the first time in something like 60 years that the budget was actually cut, instead of the rate of increase simply being adjusted.

Even the 1995 Republican Revolution only cut the amount spending was increased. This was called “cuts” by the most ridiculous Liberals of the time, because they seriously think that increasing spending the “planned” amount is not an increase, at all. So if you plan to increase spending 3%, and then increase it 2%, that is a “cut”.

This is what I had feared the “cuts” in the Continuing Resolution actually were; just reductions in the increase.

But it’s worse…as I noted above, the CRs were actually based on the rejected, larger budget. And the Republican leadership is corrupt enough to reduce only those proposed super-increases, leaving the temporary budget still higher than last year, then claim credit as if they’d actually cut spending.

This explains more clearly, to me, why 54 Republicans, mostly TEA Party types, refused to vote for the CR.

Billionaires Shouldn’t Give Their Wealth to Charity


There are few more wasteful, socially irresponsible things the wealthy can do than give away money

Warren Buffet, and other goofy, out of touch, guilt-ridden socialists have been pushing other billionaires to give away half of their money to charity.

But this would not be philanthropy. This would not be altruism. It would be a destructive blow against our society.

Why?

Because they would mostly be throwing that money down a black hole.

When, precisely, are Jerry’s Kids going to be cured? Jerry was panhandling for them halfway through the LAST century.

How about Red Cross? Why is it perennially struggling to make ends meat, when it managed to steal a billion dollars just from people giving to Katrina, Haitian Earthquake, and 9-11 victims?

Even the small percentage actually spent by a charity on the cause at hand just feeds existing needs. They spend the money and it’s gone. The problems remain. No charity has ever shut down because it solved its cause.

Those billionaires, on the other hand, have ALREADY given more to society than any, or in some cases, every charity combined.

Is Bill Gates worth sixty billion dollars? Then this reflects sixty billion other people voluntarily gave him, in return for software they must have valued at MORE than its asking price, otherwise they wouldn’t have bought it. Bill Gates, apparently, knows how to create wealth that benefits society…and every penny traded to him reflects that.

If he keeps the money and invests it in other wealth-creating ideas, he will do just that:

Create more wealth.

And THAT benefits society, more than all of the panhandling, anti-profit organizations ever do.

If he, or any other billionaire, wants to “give away” the money, then they should give it to ENTREPRENEURS.

The fool on Stossel right now, who says he’s giving away 75% of his six billion dollars, could simply hand out 4,500 one million dollar grants to the wildest, most unlikely, but serious and possible business plans and ideas they can find.

If just one percent of those ideas becomes a billion dollar company, he’s increased the benefit of his money to our society by TEN THOUSAND percent.

So he can toss it down the State-Mandated Non-Profit pit of poverty-enablement to be consumed by professional mendicants and vanish…or he can create a hundred times more wealth for our society, thereby permanently reducing poverty.

REPLACE the Bush Tax Cuts


The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

Arizona’s Death Panel?


It’s bad enough that the Federal government created its first actual death panels thirty years ago, with organ transplants.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

Why Steal $700,000,000,000 from the US Economy?


Robin Hood stole from the Political Class and returned to the taxpayers made poor by the government's burden

With the US economy suffering its first depression in sixty years, why would the Liberal Democrats in Congress want to suck seven hundred billion dollars from the economy?

But that is what they’re demanding, with their bizarre claim that we should raise taxes in the midst of this economic crisis.

When they say letting job-producing businesses and families making more than $250K per year keep their money “will cost seven hundred billion dollars”, of course that means that NOT letting them keep it will cost the private economy that same amount.

And, of course, the private economy is what creates wealth and permanent jobs.

We have seen that for the past year, when the government’s make-work “stimulus” jobs each ended, causing unemployment to worsen.

A “stimulus” job is a burden on the economy that must eventually end, leaving the worker unemployed again…but a job at at a real company pays for itself…as long as the worker makes the employer a profit, the business keeps employing him.

So, in order to save our economy, we need to leave money in private hands, to create wealth that sustains private jobs, that create more wealth, on and on.

Remember, the Political Class thinks that it owns the money it confiscates in taxes…but in the real world, WE own it, and the entire economy is robbed when it’s taken by the government.

The T.E.A. Party is correct: We are Taxed Enough, Already.

Hayek Trumps Rothbard: Free Market in Money, not Fiat Gold


ALL VALUE is a “mutually shared illusion” in the marketplace.

What we need is not for a socialist government to force us to all use Fiat Gold, which is what Rothbardian faux-Austrians claim, but instead to have a free market in currency, like Hayek and the real Austrians have long said.

Money is an accounting tool, it has its own intrinsic worth as a means of facilitating and measuring trade and value. If you saddle it with some secondary function and valuation, like forming jewelry and USB connectors, then you end up with an even more unstable economy, as the value of the money becomes less predictable, changing with the supply and demand of that secondary commodity.

This is why we had bigger, worse economic downturns from 1873-1934, on the gold standard, and our best overall period of growth from 1973-2001, when we left Breton Woods and had not yet encountered the massive, Hoover-like growth of government under Bush.

The True Means of Production


Socialists like to proclaim that the workers are the means of production, and therefore should own all of its benefits.
But the factory worker is, in fact, the LEAST of the elements that goes into the production of wealth:
  • The inventor’s role is indispensable.
    Without him, there is nothing to make.
  • The entrepreneur, who recognizes the value of the invention and promotes its production, is almost as important.
    Without him, the invention is a dead end.
  • While anyone can invest, those who do are unique among the society in taking a risk and enabling the production.
    Without them, there are no resources for making it.
  • Without the facilitation of the management, everything would still fall on its face. Only some people are capable of organizing with any competence.
    Without this, people end up running in circles.
  • The engineers, who may not know science, but figure out how to produce things efficiently, have a relatively rare skill.
    Without them, nothing can be built effectively.
  • After all of that, the workers are little more than human cogs. Almost anyone can be trained into a production worker’s role…a fact that is exploited by the oppressive union monopolies, who TREAT them like interchangeable numbers.

Laborers can be proud of how they accomplish their otherwise-interchangeable role, and of their potential to move beyond their basic position. They have a right to the ambition of moving up into a less disposable role…but to pretend they are the “means of production” is fraudulent.

Local Food is Bad for the Environment


If you’re worried about “carbon footprint”, then you should buy mass-produced, agribusiness foods, not local.

Local food, because it’s grown on a smaller scale, is produced and shipped less efficiently. The little tractor, pickup truck, et cetera, end up consuming more fossil fuels per pound of food than ones produced by huge combines and shipped in 18 wheelers.

I know, from a simplistic Green perspective, inductively reasoned perspective, “big is bad”, but the reality is different.

For example, an ancient, coal-powered steam engine passenger train, belching out black smoke, pollutes less than the number of automobiles its passengers would have otherwise needed…and likewise, big combines and cargo ships/barges pollute less — per food item harvested — than tractors and pickup trucks.

Likewise, smaller farmers tend to use pesticides and fertilizers less efficiently, for the same reasons. They also waste more water per pound of food irrigating.

Now if I actually buy, say, tomatoes, it’s only the ones that actually taste good, which are usually from some stand and often are locally grown. I’m not worried about it either way…but I don’t have any delusions of helping the environment, I just prefer that my tomatoes not taste like mealy goop.

References:

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

The Double Thank-You of Capitalism


John Stossel is correct, when he points out that politics and socialism are Zero Sum Games, where wealth is taken by force and nothing gained, while the free market is a Win-Win Game, where in any transaction both sides feel they have gained, not lost.

You thank the clerk, and he thanks you…because he wanted the money more than the product, and you wanted the product more than the money.

%d bloggers like this: