Miscellany: 9/25/13

Quote of the Day
Nature does not bestow virtue;
 to be good is an art.
Seneca

Dedicated to the Fed: Printing Money Out of Nothing at All



Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

"Social justice" is about as realistic as my chances to date this woman:

Courtesy of Laissez-Faire Capitalism

RAG Walking

Jay Leno has a recurring feature called jaywalking featuring ordinary Americans saying not-so-bright things in interview clips. I'm going to do something similar to economically illiterate things said by "progressives" or social liberals (versus classical (economic/individualist) liberals, like me). This comes via the Being Classically Liberal page on Facebook

Perhaps these ladies from the Paul Krugman School of Luddism will next explain how their little brothers hitting baseballs through neighbors' glass windows stimulate the economy. Excuse me while I go through my speedy self-checkout lane at the Home Depot while these ladies stand in checkout lines they could otherwise spend working or doing anything more constructive than waiting in line.  Even Homer Simpson wanted to weigh in on the ladies' contribution to the economy:



After Bush/Obama, We've Gone From #2 to #17?

... while Russia has gone up 12 places, has a flat tax, has 6% unemployment, and the national debt is 8% of the economy (ours is over 100%). Russia, at #101, still has a way to go (but leads the rest of the BRIC countries).

Courtesy of the Fraser Institute Via Agora Financial

My Comment on a Cafe Hayek Post

Russ Roberts, Don Boudreaux's co-blogger at Cafe Hayek, the host of Monday's weekly hour-plus Econtalk, is back to posting and has written a recent string of posts on Krugman, more specifically Krugman's cheerleading the Democratic Left's populist views of more government spending and regulation. (I have only incidental contact with Roberts; for example, I was once trying to email him and in my browser his link showed Don Boudreaux's email address. I emailed Boudreaux and asked him to forward to Roberts; Roberts replied in a polite but defensive manner. I seem to recall he was arguing something like I couldn't be experiencing the problem because he was getting emails from the link. I did discover I got the correct link using a different browser.) I think both Roberts and Boudreaux go out of their way to criticize GOP politicians for violating free market principles, and one time when I was doing some reading on market monetarism and hadn't seen a recent talk with Scott Sumner, and he curtly responded he had already interviewed Sumner. (I don't think he enclosed links. I recently listened to one of the Sumner podcasts but I don't think that interview discussed monetary policy.) He probably thinks I'm a crank and didn't comment, as of this point, on my comment, although I posted mine a few hours after most other comments.

Roberts and I have different styles; Roberts goes out of the way to show a more humble approach, admitting for instance has more of a classical liberal perspective and wanting to control for any of his own biases in reading the work of others. He is very tactful in disagreeing with others.  I'm more direct but not deliberately provocative; I think I have more patience than most people and avoid ad hominem arguments (I am, of course, judgmental about Obama, but I have studied his proposals and rationales. I will poke fun at him if and when I think he's a little too full of himself (but I also poke fun at myself), but I do not reference what I regard as disrespectful material, but I go out of my way to lay out my perspective and my differences.).

Roberts in this piece thinks that Krugman is overplaying his hand in arguing "austerity" is responsible for current poor economic performance. Roberts talks about other economic factors like regulatory policies (say, wage controls, benefit mandates), morally hazardous social policies (say, overly generous unemployment insurance), uncertainty (e.g., tax policies), etc. But Krugman is arguing that moderating the $1T increase of the budget in less than a decade--essentially less than pocket change in GDP--is the "cause". Keep in mind we've had historically low interest rates, and a tripling of our national debt over the last dozen years--and we had more robust recovery in the past after depressions and recessions without even these tools available (as familiar readers are well-aware). I think Roberts thinks as a first-rate economist, Krugman out of respect for his profession should not participate in a unsupported form of leftist economic populism and be ludicrously dismissive of salient factors....

From a non-economist: A Bastiat-style parable. The man in the street vs. the pickpocket. The man no longer carries his wallet in his pocket. From the perspective of the pickpocket, the economy is failing. But the man in the street gets to spend or save more of his own money.

Bad Elephants of the Year Repeat Nominees: John McCain and Peter King

I think it's safe to say my annual choice will be from among McCain, Graham, and King, although who knows what idiocy could surface in the fourth quarter, just a few days away. In reference to Ted Cruz and particularly his recent filibuster to defund ObamaCare, King was quoted referring to the action of "governmental terrorism" and a McCain aide recently let it slip that McCain "f***ing hates Ted Cruz".

Other Comments: Pope Francis on The Libertarian Republic

Sigh. The last thing I want to do is get sucked up into some inane forum thread like in my low-carb days in 2003-2004. Apparently the editor of the blog is promising a hatchet job on Pope Francis (the hatchet job is implied by other comments he has made implying that he is aware of some "evidence" and asks other sympathetic commentators for evidence); my responses to the alert and related comments are in red).

"Is the new Pope a Marxist? New piece coming soon..."

 As a Catholic, not happy with his populist nonsense about the unemployed workers demanding jobs. I wrote a recent blog post asking "Is the Pope Catholic?" I think his theory of the papacy is to stir the pot; any publicity is good publicity. I personally don't like the papacy by gimmick; we already have an American President by gimmick. Looking at some of the other comments, no, he's not a communist or socialist, but he's more collectivist than individualist and probably favors some statist redistribution schemes. No, the Church does not promote proponents of liberation theology. It is true some early Christian communities had socialist aspects, but other than, say, some monasteries or religious orders, it never persisted. I think some early communities expected an imminent Second Coming, so you don't acquire property if the world was going to end tomorrow.

 "Liberation Theology has been ruling the Catholic church since the 1960's. You bet he's a marxist."

 From a Catholic News Agency story, "One of Pope Francis' former teachers, Argentinean Jesuit priest Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone, has said that the Holy Father never supported a Marxist-based liberation theology."

"He is actually right he is attacking crony capitalism and corporatism which is fascism, in my opinion he defends the free market."

Not a chance. He is stereotyping a culture he sees as focused on money.. Make no mistake: he is attacking capitalism directly, not just corrupt relationships between business and government. I did a simple Google search on "pope" and "anti-capitalist" and just on the first page picked up stories on John Paul II, Benedict and Francis.

Laissez Faire Capitalism FB: A Government Shutdown _?_

My suggestions:

• would liberate the private sector....
•  means that we don't have to pay federal employees for doing nothing...

Courtesy of Reason

Chart of the Day: Economic Freedom vs. Corruption

Courtesy of Alejandro Antonio Chafuen at Laissez Faire Capitalism on Facebook

Announcing the Inaugural Most Favored Politician Class

This designation is a tongue-in-cheek reference to more liberal trade status.

Current Selections:

• Rand Paul, U.S  Senator (R-KY)
• Tom Coburn, US Senator (R-OK)
• Justin Amash, US House of Representatives (R-MI)
• Bobby Jindal,  Governor (R-LA)

Emeritus

• Ron Paul, US House of Representatives (R-TX)
• Mitch Daniels, Governor (R-IN)

International:

• Daniel Hannan, British Conservative MEP

Posthumous:

• Calvin Coolidge, US President
• Grover Cleveland, US President
• Robert Taft, U.S. Senator (I-OH)
• Howard Buffett, US House of Representatives (R-NE)
• Lady Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister

Not a Most Favored Politician: Abraham Lincoln

Gary North cited Abe Lincoln's first political speech in 1832. At least Abe got the last one right but killed a lot of Americans in the process:

“Friends and Fellow-Citizens:
“I am plain Abe Lincoln. I have consented to become a candidate for the legislature. My political principles are like the old woman’s dance-short and sweet. I believe in a United States Bank; I believe in a protective tariff; I believe in a system of internal improvements, and I am against human slavery. If on that platform you can give me your suffrages, I shall be much obliged. If not, no harm done, and I remain respectfully yours, ABE LINCOLN.”

The first one is a variation of the Fed Reserve, the second is anti-consumer, and the third is noncompetitive, centralized infrastructure building.

In Honor of the Cruz Defund ObamaCare Filibuster



Civil Forfeiture = Government Theft



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Musical Interlude: Motown

Mary Wells "My Guy" /The Temptations, "My Girl"

Miscellany:9/24/13

Quote of the Day
Man's greatest actions are performed in minor struggles. 
 Life, misfortune, isolation, abandonment and poverty 
are battlefields which have their heroes
obscure heroes 
who are at times greater than 
illustrious heroes.
Victor Hugo

Image of the Day: Performance of the Federal Reserve
or "Heck of a Job, Helicopter Ben" on That Second Mandate

Courtesy of Daily Reckoning and ZeroHedge

End  Fiscal Year "Use It or Lose It" Federal Spending Spree;  While the Spotlight of Public Scrutiny is on the Congress and President:
All They Want to Do Is Dance (Around Fiscal Responsibility)
While Our Grandchildren's Future is Burning
Obama and Congress Selling Out Quickly
All They Want to Do is Spend, Spend, Spend

According to the Washington Times:

Despite the deep budget sequester cuts that have tightened belts across the government, the Coast Guard is in a rush to empty its budget coffers — the annual fourth-quarter push for federal agencies to spend all of their money or risk smaller budgets the next year.“The standards haven’t changed,” said Carlos Diaz, a Coast Guard spokesman. “We’ve got to spend our entire operational budget every year.”

Known as Christmas in July [i.e., the start of the last fiscal year quarter], the push to spend out budgets has been documented by government auditors for years. The philosophy is that if agencies return unspent money at the end of a fiscal year, Congress will decide it didn’t need all of it and will cut funding the next year. So federal employees go into overdrive by buying office furniture, playground equipment, musical instruments and other items, according to audit reports. Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and one of the leading fiscal hawks on Capitol Hill, said that must not happen this year.

Tom Coburn is a favorite senator (and will be the inaugural member to attain the blog's Most Favored Politician status).

Reason's pollster Emily Ekins, who I believe is the prettiest pollster on the planet, had earlier pointed out how Republicans, Democrats and independents differ on whether the government spends too much:

Courtesy of Reason

Remember, I recently quoted the Keynesian Minority Queen of the House, Nancy Pelosi, whom insists that we've cut out the waste, the cupboard is bare. (Don't ask her how the Justice Department finds the money to feed its employees $16 muffins or where the IRS finds 10 grand to make a Star Trek training skit, GSA managed to fund flying in government employees for a conference in Las Vegas (two words: web conferencing: no hotel bills, no car rentals, no per diem, no airline booking, etc.))

Nick Gillespie conveniently forgets that it took a GOP Congress to achieve a balanced budget for the first time in decades, he wants to publicly lash the 2003-2006 Republicans for losing their way (and certainly the Patriot Act, the DHS super-bureaucracy, the TARP legislation, and the unfunded war and Medicare drug benefit are inexcusable GOP-led initiatives, but let us recall GOP conservatives, at minimum, revolted against TARP and the new unfunded liability). As for the Dem disingenuous fiscal conservatism, it was just as politically opportunistic as FDR's faux fiscal hawk criticism of Hoover and Clinton's attacks on GHW Bush for agreeing to a tax hike demanded by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Remember, Ted Kennedy argued that Bush's 70% (if not more) increase in federal education spending didn't go nearly far enough, and the Democrats' key criticism of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit  was an unfunded "doughnut hole". In fact, since the Democrats led one or both chambers of Congress since 2007, the budget has gone up more than a trillion dollars and the publicly-held debt has better than doubled. I will say Gillespie seems to recognize this: "I would argue also that while Democrats were relatively more critical of the government during the Bush years, they were also getting a huge heaping serving of what they wanted - a large and growing government that spent more and more and regulated more and more - so the gulf between Dems and Reps was relatively small."  (Nick, do you want to also bust the urban legend that Bush and McCain were ideological deregulators?)  I would also point out that the Bush wars were consistent with "progressive Democrat" intervention wars/rationale during the twentieth century.

I am not being partisan here: I think Bush  deserves more of the blame because he was reluctant to veto anything. This encourages Spenders Gone Wild. The term-limit Republicans gave way to the career politician "Bridge to Nowhere" Republicans where an Alaskan GOP senator threatened to resign his seat if his boondoggle wasn't approved. But compared to Democrat super-spending and super-deficits, the GOP spenders were strictly amateurs. There's also a big difference in overspending once you reach your credit limit, i.e., GDP-sized debt; personally, I'm more a transactor (pay as you go operational budget) vs. revolver.

Courtesy of Gallup Via Reason

Military Intervention: Pro and Con

No surprise whose argument I accept here (non-inventionist). Notice that the pro-side is not discussing a direct threat to America in advocating the application of military power.



Obam-Me, Putin Wants to Play With You



More on Detroit and Self-Government





Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Musical Interlude: Motown

Stevie Wonder, "Part-Time Lover"