Congressman Jim Moran is a dolt. An excerpt from a local DC newspaper followed by comments from the von Mises blog:
The bill, which was introduced last week, will contain more than $500 billion in spending that — coupled with more than $200 billion in tax cuts — Congress hopes will stimulate the economy and drag the country out of recession. But where will all this spending go? No one’s exactly sure, [Congressman Jim] Moran said, and that is why now is the time for localities across the country to be lobbying for a piece of this federal funding. “The biggest threat, these economists tell us, is that whatever the government does it will be too little and too late. So we’re going to act posthaste,” Moran said. “Those communities, those organizations that are ready with projects that can begin immediately are the ones who are going to get the money.”
I love this excerpt about the Moran comments:
So, if we follow Moran’s argument, the best economic policy is to blindly spend money in a panic based on who organizes the most effective lobbying campaign. Nothing could go wrong with this plan…Moran’s wisdom is evident: You can easily employ millions of people in government-financed jobs if you’re just willing to incur enough debt. Obviously, these jobs will continue to exist after government financing ceases and it becomes apparent there’s no market demand for these positions. Seriously, how can one refute Moran’s superior economic reasoning? Government spending = prosperity. It’s amazing it took humanity until 2009 to realize this self-evident truth.
Where does it all end? I can’t help but think of the scene from Pink Floyd’s The Wall where school kids walk the conveyor belt ultimately being ground into hamburger:
Apparently, this is the new American way: the secure feeling of being like everyone else all the while headed nowhere except toward ground chuck (see time code of 4:11 in video). I almost forgot the animated version of the grinder from ‘The Wall’ too. A screen shot:
Maybe the “collective” will not be so bad. I found this little bit on socialism. It makes me want to sign up!
Socialism would also enable us to raise our living standards dramatically by ending the billions of dollars thrown away on arms production and “defense,” by ending the waste, duplication and inefficiency of capitalist industries, and by returning millions of soldiers and unemployed workers to useful occupations. In socialist society there would be no wage system. Workers would receive the social value of their labor. And since the people would collectively own the industries, anyone would be free to select any occupation in which he or she has an interest and aptitude. No longer would workers live under the fear of being laid off, or be compelled to spend their lives at some job they hate or are unsuited for. Also, since the people would collectively own the colleges and universities, no longer would workers be denied education or training because they lack the money to buy it. Furthermore, under socialism we would produce for use and to satisfy the needs of all the people. Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose—to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. If there are enough buyers here and abroad, then the capitalists will have their factories turn out cars, appliances, pianos and everything else for which buyers can be found. But if people lack money, if the domestic and foreign markets cannot absorb them, then these factories shut down and the country stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:39 am
I keep editing this post with more stuff!
January 27th, 2009 at 12:45 am
It used to be that a lynch mob was a bad thing, but if enough folks get “scared”, anything goes these days!
January 27th, 2009 at 12:58 am
You got me there!
January 27th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Haven’t we been noting the bankruptcy of education?
How can people think, when all they’ve gotten is indoctrination during their school years?
The damning irony is that Pink Floyd’s kids are strident in not wanting ANY education.
Full confesson: I found the video moving - I tend toward classic movies + sports for my entertainment fix.
So, local gov’t consists in begging central gov’t for money, which was taken from selfsame citizens, originally?
And we citizens choose to believe we then get free goodies.
And we re-elect these corrupt buffoons…
How smart are we?
January 27th, 2009 at 1:04 am
For me though, this is not only about current Democratic control. I just finished watching Bush and his team spend a freaking fortune down the hole last fall! They are all cut from the same cloth - say anything to get elected.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:05 am
I would say the kids in “The Wall” did want an education, they just did not want an indoctrination they intuitively knew was false.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Fair point about the kids, Michael.
Pres. Bush did well for national security - and, he seemed to know better about mortgage corruption in 2003; then caved.
Apart from trying, perhaps, to be too nice, he & RINO Repub.’s still seem befogged by the idea of “experts,” who have high-status credentials, but still dream that they can control markets.
So, again, no general education, no?
I didn’t know that Mises and Hayek had not only disproved Keynes (1920’s-’30’s), they felt that others before them had long since done so - and that Keynes’ “stimulus” policies were just more political seduction.
Now, we’e relearning, while more kids turn into hamburger.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Maybe I am just odd, but that conveyor belt of kids being turned into ground chuck is society today. When will America stand up, kick ass and stop whining for a handout from “Daddy”? You start to wonder if people will ever get pissed off, pick themselves up, and get on with it. Or is it a nation of ****** forever now?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Michael, & Ms. P., couple things:
If political greed requires our (voters’) belief in made-up emergencies - so that we accept politicians’ grasp of our money - then it’s we (not all of us, obviously) who allow ourselves to be panicked.
Then, there’s the living-in-denial factor; psychologists tell us that it’s a feature of addiction, as common in gambling/trading activities as in substance abuse. It may seem far afield, but Michael has pointed out irrational reasons for trading badly. One may be a childish hope that government, in parental fashion, will always “be there” to make good any losses; another may be envy/revenge thoughts about winners, when losers have to realize they’ve bet badly.
All pretty ugly stuff, when lifetime political officeholders can co-opt free markets to re-elect themselves.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Re: Michael’s question, “Or is it a nation of ****** forever now?”
Definition I’ve heard of “dependency culture:” one where a majority want a Mommy’s tit to suck on, an allowance from Daddy, and some combination of windowless casino/whorehouse/shopping mall in which to play.
Does this translate into exchanges, and the industries they’re based on?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Sitting down at the table with folks who believe man started 10,000 years ago is not exactly something I have the stomach for…I would rather stare at my T-Rex and Triceratops skulls thank you very much!
January 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual, there is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot not be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I must say, this is an interesting conversation.
But, guys (Ms. P included), what’s the need of libertarian theorizing? We have (had?) a Constitution, a reasonable business plan for a free-market civilization.
Nothing in it, if memory serves, requires rolling over for intimidation, theft, extortion or, for that matter, government confiscation.
It seems to me that we either do or don’t have time to elect people who will support basic things like tax cuts and term limits - time, in effect, to re-educate ourselves as a society, and re-free our markets.
Or, we don’t; and we’ll lapse into the sort of socio-economic failure that Europe seems to be sliding toward - and, at the end of those processes, we, too, may face outright violent conflicts between various factions, as
one sees historically, from the Roman empire to Soviet Russia.
Maybe terrorist nuclear events, thrown in?
Happy thought.
I read that tax revolts were quite widespread during the early years of the Depression, supported not just by fringe types, but by pillars-of-the-community, too.
Is that a strategy?
Michael, my sympathies with your efforts to converse with some of the more rabid religious; it always puzzled me why holding a set of values or ideals required badgering everyone else into accepting them - rather than simply persuading, if necessary at all, preferably by example.
And, is it any scarier to try talking to lefty fanatics than to those literal Creationists?
Aren’t there global-warming extremists, with as little grasp of science?
How about feminists who seem ready to have one executed for de-funding some abortion clinic or other?
It might help to simply point out the impoverishment of our society right now, by diluting our currency through bailouts, by increasing unemployment, emptying out people’s retirement savings, etc., etc. - all of which is due to our Congress, with active or passive Presidential complicity.
And, yes, aren’t 3rd parties a waste of time?
January 27th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
We have a choice to not participate in a socialist movement. If you have time to waste, read Karl Marx’s Manuscript of 1844. In it he talks about the destruction of capitalism through capitalism. By not obstructing the path of capitalism it will defeat itself. Clearly he is only trying to prove the invalidity of our system by running its course. Whether this is correct or not, it is still a never ending nauseating debate. We haven’t seen any destruction yet…and I dont see any reasons why it would. This talk about getting taken over by evil politicians (and they are) is unfounded. Government spending is not going to kill the free market, and our agreeing or disagreeing with this fact wont change anything. Obama and the democrats want to run around and socialize everything is it? good luck. People will revolt against that system as they did in the old soviet republic. Maybe someday we could see a truly perfect libertarian/ Ayn Rand system work, or maybe not, but we live in the present, and the current affairs don’t suggest the destruction of capitalism.
p.s what is this talk about evolution and creationism? are we still debating this issue?
January 27th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
“So, if someone hijacked your home or your car or your house you would just let them have it?”
You could call the police, go shoot them, etc. But how do those techniques help when dealing with people of “faith” who patently ignore basic science. Life is too short for me to spend time converting the crazies. It’s like trying to convince Tom Cruise that Xenu doesn’t really exist! I can’t be on Tom’s team or the team filled with folks who think man got here 10,000 years ago. No hope there. On the other hand, a mission to convince people of something beyond buy and hold seems much more doable.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“I figure that if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#11
and a different explanation.
http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-still-there-are-monkeys.html
It is not certain that evolution is true in the scientific community, we only have evidence that leads us to think it is true, neither do we have evidence that it is completely false. The current paradigm in science are the theories we have yet to prove false. Once we prove it false, then the theory is no longer accepted and we dismiss it, or revise our conclusions based on the new evidence. Evolution is a continuing change in scientific thought. New evidence only changes the conclusion, not vice versa. To refute an idea based on a misrepresentation is a straw-man argument. Now if those explanations are still nebulous, I recommend further investigation. Then again these are only explanations in favor of it, I would gather that there must exist an explanation not in favor of evolution, but still explains it.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
If Progressives insist they evolved from monkeys then I feel pretty good about that. I would rather think I came from God. We need to show a little more compassion towards Progressives… there are not fully evolved yet.
Read this Time Magazine if you can find it…
http://www.larepublicans.com/assets/monkeys1.jpg
January 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
For the creationists out there, I will play ball for a second. I can use some help/explanations:
1. Homo-sapien is man alone? How does Neanderthal fit in? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo erectus? Pithecanthropus erectus? Isn’t the “we came from monkeys that can’t be true” argument more than disingenuous? More. Doesn’t a version of man being here for 2 million years contradict the Bible 10,000 year vantage?
2. How are dinosaurs explained? They evolved or were put here by “intelligent design” too?
I am not just being sarcastic, but the creationist or intelligent design argument seems to throw all known evidence out the door…and just says “believe”. Wasn’t the “believe” argument also used in the X-files? What’s the difference? And before someone comes guns a blazing, try and respond to what I am writing here, it is specific.
Added:
I found this excerpt:
“…more than half the people in this country believe that human beings walked the planet when dinosaurs were alive…”
If that is true, well, we have a country filled with mental ding-a-lings. I am sorry, come on! That is not only wrong, it’s nuts.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I also found some posts that said creationists believe God put dinosaur bones on the planet for us to find, but there was never any flesh with the bones. Other posts say the dinos were all on the Ark, but died shortly after the flood was over. Please tell me, someone, that these are not proffered arguments among intelligent people?
January 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I will bring it full circle: many people deny the existence of trend following performance numbers. They say “lucky”. Sure, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled for me to respect their opinion if it is misguided. Same with dinos. For me this is all about examining “clear thinking”. Unclear thinking is why America is in the middle of a historically bad economy now. There is a certain basic clarity on life’s issues, perhaps the reason I admire how Rand saw and wrote about the world.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I thought I had explained my philosophy pretty well in this article here http://www.michaelcovel.com/2009/01/11/atlas-shrugged-from-fiction-to-fact-in-52-years/
February 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
More…on monkeys.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I see absolutely no possible connection between man and monkey. I believe Xenu did it all. Time to go back to my padded room.