 |
| Via A Catholic Life |
Too many time we confuse motion with progress.
Cyclops
Rant of the Day: Boudreaux's Reflection on Hebert/Middleton Santa Job Killer Satire
(The satire led off yesterday's post.)
The sad truth is that, if Santa Claus were real, the likes of Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Sherrod Brown, and a large number of other government officials, each of whom publicly displays only an elf-sized understanding of economics, would in fact accuse him of all manner of economic wrongdoings. They would seek to shut Santa down, or at least to force Rudolf and the other reindeer to land at the border where Grinchly customs agents would force Santa to pay hefty punitive tariffs while other agents – fancying themselves to be more knowledgeable and caring than are parents – root through Santa’s sleigh to inspect the toys and to refuse to allow Santa to deliver those toys that they, the agents (rather than the parents), determine are misfit.
….
Indeed, Dave’s and Austin’s theme can and should be generalized: if low-priced goods and services from abroad are harmful to the domestic economy, then many charitable acts are harmful. Charitable acts, by their nature, are contributions to others – gifts to the the recipients of the charitable actions. So I wonder why, for example, do so many of the same “Progressives” who call for restrictions on trade with low-wage countries applaud “volunteering.” Don’t volunteers destroy jobs, and do so at wages ($0) below cost? And what’s with donating cars and clothing and food and toys? Donations are made below cost. Surely it’s better that these items be destroyed, rather than donated, in order to increase the number of jobs for people working in the auto industry and in clothing stores, on farms and in restaurants and supermarkets, and in toy stores?
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Wendy DeFreeuw on FB |
 |
| Via LFC |
I realize I'm late to this story; I saw Drudge link to the story of Fountain Green, UT hold its first Christmas Light parade for the dying 6-year-old sweetheart, who is suffering from some undiagnosed disease and is a fraction of the normal size and weight for her age; her parents have been told this will likely be the sweetie's last Christmas. Addie's Facebook page is here. God bless the good people supporting Addie and her family during this difficult time.
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). "A stable government by law means a limited government that protects persons and property, including the property right citizens have in sound money. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and reclaim its constitutional mandate to safeguard the value of money rather than delegating that responsibility to a non-elected government central bank board and bureaucrats, no matter how smart they think they are."
Worst idea in the world. Have you seen our Congress lately?
What part of "a case for a monetary rule" did you fail to understand? What the author is talking about is restoring power delegated to the Fed--and replacing it with a rule... But let's keep in mind that the currency was relatively stable before the Fed was created a century below. What you guys are saying is that you would rather trust unaccountable bureaucrats--who have been responsible for multiple asset bubbles over the past 20 years--this is the definition of insane.
What are you, a bunch of Statists? You want Congress to take over the function of a private sector citizens initiative? Say it ain't so, Cato!
Satire sometimes, as in this case, is manifest idiocy. The Fed is no private sector citizens' initiative. The government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain a strong currency. We don't need a central bank, and so could reinstate some sort of free banking system with multiple issuers of banknotes (which would be better today given that stupid government regulations prohibiting branch banking have been overhauled). This system would be far more accountable than the status quo where the Fed enjoys a government-protected monopoly.
(Ron Paul). Conservatives need the principles of liberty laid out for them on every issue, so says this libertarian: http://bit.ly/1zfsaWg
Oh, give me a break! The "progressives" in the twentieth century joined in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and east Europe. The successful candidate in 2008 ran on having the judgment to give an early speech against involvement in Iraq and not only failed to improve on Bush's negotiated exit but basically edged back in after running for reelection on getting us out of there; he has expanded drone strikes in countries with which we have no declaration of war. He signs off on kill lists, including Americans overseas. This civil liberty former lecturer on Constitutional law signed off on renewal of the Patriot Act and presided over the NSA scandals without pushing for relevant reforms. He has attempted to expand the power of the Executive Branch, despite losing a record number of 9-0 SCOTUS judgments. If you want to take on disingenuous political groups, take on the hypocritical progressives who rode discontent with Bush's vs. Clinton's military interventions to victory in 2006 and 2008,
Ron Paul did not run away from the conservative label; instead, he embraced it as the most consistent conservative in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. There are a number of us pro-liberty conservatives who identify with the Old Right coalition in the FDR era--conservatives in the classical liberal/small government, non-interventionist tradition, including, but not restricted to Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Massie. We have openly embraced liberalization of Cuba policy, against militarized police and government intrusion on privacy, against foreign interventionist policies, for expanded immigration, etc.
There is a wide array of conservatives, including paleos, like Buchanan, who espouse mercantilistic policies but also non-interventionist views. But the ones this author is targeting are what I call media conservatives or conservative populists. I've found myself attacked by and done battle with them in various forums. It's a long battle, changing minds one at a time; I'm patient because I myself migrated to a more libertarian from a conventional Big Defense conservative perspective in middle age.
I think one can be conservative and libertarian.
The OP is correct; I call myself a pro-liberty conservative in the classical liberal/small government tradition. And, yes, you can also espouse social conservative views while believing in the free will of others not compromising the natural rights of others. Today's "social" liberal believes in positive vs. negative liberties/rights, i.e., things the government must do on my behalf vs. things government can't due to diminish my natural rights without due process.
Conservatives are oligarchs. That's why they're called conservatives ; they want to preserve the monarchy
You don't understand the meaning of 'corporatism'. It's an artifact of Big Government. Ron Paul wrote this very clear explanation: "Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers."
Further comment on conservatives, who are distinct from right-wing authoritarians. In fact, there's an argument to be made that today's Democrats are left-wing authoritarians, leftist Hamiltonians. Conservatives must be viewed in the context of a tradition; in America, there is a classical liberal tradition. Preservation of social classes, monarchies, etc., is more of a European conservative construct.
(FEE). The Laffer Curve isn't "voodoo economics"—it's just a tool that helps prevent the use of counter-productive tax policies.
There are so many complications to taxes (linear/flat vs. progressive), exemptions, deductions, credits, etc., nature of tax (production vs. consumption), regulatory policies, industry and general economic conditions, etc., it's difficult to ascertain explaining power of taxes vs. other economic factors. But we've recently seen the result of France's 75% tax rate, which not only fails to make a serious dent in France's budget woes, but the residential nature of the tax has made it difficult to attract world-class managers for key businesses.
The fascists, of course, want to ensure that their total take of legal plunder is not diminished--which leads one to question other tradeoffs, the return to the economy of diminished plunder vs. the intrinsic inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the monopoly government. The difficulty, of course, is the tyranny of the majority against the economically successful class, which is the target of populist whores.
Perhaps knowing there is a point where excess government tax rates are counterproductive, we need to empirically interpolate tax decreases to a point where economic growth does not result in some minimal level tax receipts necessary for core government functionality
Musical Interlude: Christmas 2014
Trans-Siberian Orchestra, "Christmas Eve/Sarajevo". One of my all-time favorite instrumentals and music videos ever!
