The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Liberty Itself

How can it be that conservatives are so preoccupied with restraints on sexual freedoms while simultaneously claiming to be for smaller government?  Conversely, those who favor every kind of liberty when it comes to sex find themselves very much at home with big government and its liberty stealing control in our everyday lives.  Why is this?

For one, “Sexual liberty” is a narrow view of liberty.  True liberty encompasses much more than merely the freedom to follow natural proclivities to procreate with no more concern for the offspring than dogs.  On the other hand, a young man with an entrepreneurial spirit wishing to start a business of his own will learn very quickly that liberty outside of free-for-all sex is an illusion.  He will encounter an army of bureaucrats armed to the teeth with volumes upon volumes of regulations that they intend to enforce, and who couldn’t care less about your success with your hard-earned investments.

But we as a people have grown used to a government that has taken on the persona of Mother.  “Don’t do that little Johnny, you might fall!”  “Make sure you eat your organic vegetables little Susie… so you can be a healthy girl”.  “Make sure you wash your hands… Hold onto that handrail…  Put your seatbelt on… don’t make the planet overheat” and on and on.

We all must admit that the thoughts of an over-protective Mama-government not halting traffic for us and holding our hands as we cross the street evokes, at least a little, insecurity.  There’s a certain level of comfort in Mother-nanny-state’s mandates that we stay on her side of the street where she can keep an eye on us, and keep us out of trouble; all the while consoling us that we can self-gratify sexually all we wish, under the protection of her skirt.

But true liberty calls from the wild.  She beckons the young man to come to the neighborhood of uncertainty where she resides, wherein he might discover his destiny, reach his true potential, and outside of which he will never be anything but Mama’s little government boy.


Filed under Uncategorized

Those Evil And Greedy Hotel Owners

My family and I recently traveled cross country and I looked for inexpensive hotels for our overnights. I discovered that the average price for a decent hotel was about $70.00 a night. So let me see. $70.00 a night equates to about $2100.00 a month for rent. Wow, what a rip off for a one-room kitchenless, unit in a so-so neighborhood next to a freeway.

So there I was, getting sleepy, in dire need of a place to lay my head, and waiting for me were these greedy hotels wanting to gouge me just because they could. Man! Greed is so ugly.

So, what I propose is a law that makes it illegal for these shady types to charge so much to people who have no other place to stay. Let’s see, the going rent payment for a family of 4 is, say, $1000.00 a month. This equates to about $32.00 a night. But since hotels only give you one room, then it ought to be at least half that. So the proper rate should be about $15.00 a night. That would be fair.

“But wait”, you say, “hotels are different than houses. What you’re saying is completely absurd.”  To this I respond, “Yes it is, very.”

But what if I were to change the discussion to loans? Suppose I said that all loans ought to look like a home mortgage. Suppose I looked at the payday-loan business down the street and started a crusade to force them to lend their money for a more “fair” rate?

In the same way that finding a place to sleep would become virtually impossible if rates were forced to be less than $15 a night, then so would getting that much needed loan to keep my lights on, or being evicted; both of which are much more expensive to remedy than the interest rate for high risk loans.

But hey, at least my do-gooderness would get a boost from “helping” the poor, even if I actually did more to hurt them, and that’s what it’s all about… isn’t it?


Filed under Economics, fairness, Money, Politics

Better Technology = Efficiency = A Better Life

We somehow inherently know that we are better off when the farmer uses tractors rather than people to plow his 150 acres. We know this in spite of the fact that one tractor replaces hundreds of employees. Somehow we know that what was introduced by the tractor is efficiency which allows for the higher standards of living we now enjoy in modern society.

If our thinking is static or narrow we may not see beyond the unemployed farm workers. But if our thinking is dynamic we realize that the tractor didn’t just pop out of thin air, nor did the steel from which it was made, nor the gas in it’s tank, and so on.  All of these required people, indeed employees.

So come on. You can actually enjoy that .25¢ banana, that somehow found its way from somewhere in Central America to your air-conditioned grocer, and that you lugged home in the comfort to your air-conditioned car, and are now eating in your air-conditioned house as you gaze at your 92 inch plasma, without worrying too much about unemployed wagon wheel makers.


Filed under Economics

It’s Where You Start That Determines Where You Finish

I enjoy articles on economics. The first thing I attempt to determine however is the writer’s starting point.

If a writer  starts from the premise that “government planners” can successfully control the allocation of scarce resources better than free markets, then I know that the author isn’t living in reality. He instead lives in a daycare world.  His “finish”, no matter how sophisticated his thinking, can be summed up as all us children nicely sharing our little resources like Tonka Toys.  Of course those who write from this perspective see themselves as the grownup women watching over us selfish children and our resources with a keen eye on who gets to play with what.

Many “economists” still live in such a world.  Because resources like, say, food, simply appeared on their tables at dinner time, and cars appeared in their driveways at 16, and a full government or daddy-funded education just appeared, seemingly from nothing, experience has conditioned them to feel that resources simply appear from nothing and the driving question then is not how to create more but rather how can what already exist be fairly distributed. That homes, medical care, education, or food are not a right that can be guaranteed by one man to another is utterly unfathomable to those who start with such thinking.  Such starting points determine the finish; though like all Utopian dreams, that finish must ever be in the future requiring patience from those who suffer interminably from the inevitable hardships that come with them.

On the other hand, writers whose starting point is the realization that resources are the result of risk, work, and production, not to mention human factors such as self-interest and motivation, are much more trustworthy.  Good thinking must necessarily be aligned with reality.

As for me, I’m much more confident in the economics of one whose thinking was forged in making payroll and successfully competing for business in a hostile world while simultaneously thwarting greedy lawyers, and power-hungry politicians and their bureaucrat dogs.  I’m much more inclined to think this person’s economics more insightful than those of tenured theorizers whose circumstances insulate them from the consequences of their stupid “ideas”.


Filed under Economics, fairness, Government, Harsh Reality, Worldview

Marxism, Capitalism And Their Politics, Explained

Why can’t government use its power to force equality?

What are some real problems with Marxism’s idealistic theories?

Does Capitalism really exploit the weak?

This video is a great short lesson in answering these questions:

See also:

Bob And His Apples

Leave a comment

Filed under Economic Science, Economics, Government, Harsh Reality, Politics, Worldview

What In The World Is A “Derivative”?

Suppose you’re a farmer.  Come spring you plant your crop and then wait for nature to take its course.  As you wait, you eye the horizon for clouds, realizing that you are at the mercy of the elements.  Anything could happen, and that anything could cost you your crop.

Then someone knocks on your door.  It’s a man in an expensive suit wanting to buy a portion of your crops while the seeds are still in the ground.  But there’s one catch to his offer; he’s offering you a price below market.

You understand the benefit in his offer because you know that your crop could fail.  His offer looks and feels much like insurance to you, the price of which is the sharing of profits and risks.  You both understand this.

At stake in such a transaction, just as in our discussion of debt, is the future, and future production. 

If you do decide to sell then a contract is drawn up and signed.  That contract now becomes part of the “futures” market, and since it derives its value from a portion of your future production, it is called a “derivative“.  This derivative can now be bought and sold by the owner of the contract.  

This derivative’s value will probably vary.  If a dry season threatens your crop its value may go down. If crops elsewhere in the world fail it may go up.  It could very well be bought and sold several times with profits or losses for its owner while your crop sits in the field.

These kinds of contracts do not apply to crops only however.  They could apply to all sorts of other contracts that derive their value from future production.  Even portions of your own future might be winding their way around these markets.  If you have signed a contract to repay a loan for example, as with a mortgage, you can almost bet on it.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

No Matter What Happens, There Will Be A 1%

Well, the Title is not totally true. If everyone had exactly the same thing, then there would only be the 100%, which would include everybody. But let’s face it, that’s not ever gonna happen.

Below is an excerpt from this paper, written by someone who imagines just such a world… until it gets interrupted by reality. And that same reality includes those who would rather not have any cool stuff for themselves at all if it meant being faced with the possibility that someone else might end up with more than their “fair share” of cool stuff.

Imagine a society with perfect economic equality. …[N]o one worries about the gap between the rich and poor, and no one debates to what extent public policy should make income redistribution a priority. Because people earn the value of their product, everyone is fully incentivized to provide the efficient amount of effort. The government is still needed [and are funded] with a lump-sum tax. […]The society enjoys not only perfect equality but also perfect efficiency.

Then, one day, this egalitarian utopia is disturbed by an entrepreneur with an idea for a new product. Think of the entrepreneur as Steve Jobs as he develops the iPod, When the entrepreneurs product is introduced, everyone in society wants to buy it. They each part with, say, $100. The transaction is a voluntary exchange, so it must make both the buyer and the seller better off. But because there are many buyers and only one seller, the distribution
of economic well-being is now vastly unequal. The new product makes the entrepreneur much richer than everyone else.

The society now faces a new set of questions: How should the entrepreneurial disturbance in this formerly egalitarian outcome alter public policy? Should public policy remain the same, because the situation was initially acceptable and the entrepreneur improved it for everyone? Or should government policymakers deplore the resulting inequality and use their powers to tax and transfer to spread the gains more equally?


Filed under Economics, Equality, Government, Social Justice